By Amr Moussa

The international conference called for by Egypt that was held on October 21st did something important. It clarified or confirmed the political and cultural fault lines of what looks like a clash between two blocs with conflicting interests, or rather irreconcilable basic moral assumptions.

At the global level, efforts to reshape and update the global order are underway. It has become clear that the Western community is not ready to develop its concepts, which is among the main reasons that the multilateral system has lost credibility, especially with regard to maintaining international peace and security. I am referring to double standards. The opposite of the ideal that was defended in the Ukraine is being defended in Israel-Palestine. That was clear from the interventions of most Western countries at the Cairo Conference, which upset large segments of Arab, regional, and global public opinion.

The discussions in Cairo have raised a number of alarming questions regarding the reformulation of the international order. If the Western does not change its approach, I believe that the “Global South”, as they call it, will take this into account in formulating its position on this issue.

Indeed, we must take a proactive approach to this endeavor, boldly confronting this perilous pandemic and the duplicity of double standards. Otherwise, attempts to develop the international order would be as futile as plowing the sea.

In this context, we ask: What morally justifies the Western nations’ refusal to pass the Security Council regarding humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza, which has a population of over two million people? Furthermore, why do they refuse a ceasefire? What are they waiting for?

We in Egypt know the answer. A ceasefire was delayed in October 1973 to allow the faltering Israeli military to “recover,” and today, it is now being delayed to help Israel prepare for a military incursion into the Gaza Strip. So, what constitutes legitimate defense? Can a state militarily occupying territories legitimately defend? Is assaulting civilians and enforcing collective punishment legitimate defense?

Is the demolition of Palestinian villages in the West Bank and the expulsion of their residents legitimate defense? Is erasing the Palestinian people, as demanded by extremist ministers in the current Israeli government, legitimate defense? Does anyone but Israel have a right to defend themself? This is, indeed, a regrettable case of double standards.

At the regional level, the discussions at the conference have made it clear that while Arab nations are ready for peace, as is apparent from their initiatives and agreements, they are not willing to make the concession that the West has granted Israel.

We stand on the brink of a perilous confrontation with the notions brought to light at the Cairo Conference. Many continue to believe they can exert pressure on this government or that authority to do favors for Israel. They heard unequivocal responses on this matter from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, Jordan's King Abdullah II, and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan at the conference. Their words weren't only directed to those in the West; they

also reassured their concerned citizens that things are under control. The Western smile, which had long beguiled many Arabs, entices no one now, and the promises made regularly are not taken seriously anymore.

Indeed, the only way to salvage Arab-Western relations is to be serious. I urge everyone to recognize the considerable frustration and anger of the Arab people for this and other reasons. I also want to note, here, that the region is not inhabited by Arabs alone, and they are not alone in their anger.

I would also like to call on peace advocates in Israel itself to clearly voice their position on the prospects for peace and justice. I invite them to express their opposition to their governments’ extremist policies towards the inhabitants of the occupied territories and their refusal to grant the Palestinians their right to an independent state. I envision a regional coalition that includes peace advocates in Israel changing the picture and sending those with “double standards” a stern message: You are very mistaken.

Israeli politicians should know, and I am sure they do now, that the Palestinian question will not evaporate, sink, or be buried in the desert sand. It will explode in everyone's faces so long as its people are denied their rights and their very existence is negated. They must know that their definition of security is inadequate. Striking civilians will not grant them security, nor will occupation, land confiscation, or oppression of people.

True security can only be founded on an “equilibrium,” that is, on balanced relations and mutual acceptance. This is true for the Camp David Accords, which worked because no one enabled Israel to evade its obligation to comply with the deal’s stipulation. Indeed, this equilibrium can also be found in the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo 2). However, Israel went on to violate it because those “protecting” it allowed it to not hold up its end of the bargain. And so the region - no, the world - is in the position we find ourselves in today, facing everything that has happened since October 7.

Moreover, Israel and its officials must recognize that their systematic effort to depopulate the occupied territories of their inhabitants, forcing the displacement of Palestinians as part of a plan to expand the Jewish state and end the prospects of a Palestinian state, has become blatantly transparent. We reject it. It would be challenging, indeed impossible, to compel Arab nations and their people - I repeat, their people - to accept this.

Now, what next? What is to Be Done? I am uncertain if the West in its entirety can accept to do what is necessary, as it is trapped in a mindset of double standards.

In my opinion, the Cairo Conference achieved some important humanitarian outcomes, such as opening crossings, allowing the entry of aid, and discussing the release of some detained civilians... However, the conference also achieved a lot strategically. It opened the door to critical discussions regarding the legitimate defense and its limits.

What the European representatives had to say in this regard is dangerous. It could negatively affect the international order, which requires a thoughtful Arab position to confront these attempts. In this regard, I propose that we call on the international community, the Security Council, or the United Nations General Assembly, to hold discussions on this matter. This is especially given that the US Congress, it has been reported, is considering granting Israel this right after the legal advisors realized that the United Nations Charter and the international law do stipulate that Israel is exercising its legitimate right to defense in this case, as it is, in most aspects is a reaction to the policies that occupier has taken to the detriment of the occupied population. This constitutes a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Last but not least, everyone has spoken - in one way or another, with and without good intentions - about the “political future” and the need to open horizons, which is something we should not ignore. We should strike the iron while it is hot. In this regard, I call on the Arab countries, whether within the framework of the Arab League or any other framework for collective Arab action that includes Egypt, Jordan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with other Arab countries wishing to join, to request that this matter be formally discussed in the Security Council without the need to take urgent decisions. We must call on those concerned to help open this political horizon towards a just settlement of the Palestinian question that grants them a state and ensures all of our security.

Amr Moussa is a former Arab League Secretary General and former Foreign Minister of Egypt