The recent extraordinary summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Riyadh has revealed a split in the Muslim world regarding their stance on Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip. On one side, Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, call for a stronger response against Israel and reject the two-state solution. On the other side, led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, there is a willingness to maintain economic ties with Israel and support a two-state solution. The outcome of the summit did not meet the expectations of Iran and Hamas, who were hoping for stronger measures to stop the aggression against Palestinians. This division in the Muslim world is also reflected in the recent normalization of trade and economic ties with Israel, which has diluted the positions of Arab countries. As a result, oil and gas prices have stabilized, indicating a shift towards normalization in the region.
Split in the Muslim World: Arab League vs. OIC
The recent extraordinary summit of the leaders of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Riyadh has revealed a significant split in the Muslim world. The summit highlighted the contrasting positions of two blocks within the Muslim community. On one side, there is Tehran and its allies, who align themselves with the so-called Shiite Crescent. This group rejects the two-state solution and strongly condemns Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip. They call for sanctions against Israel and support for Hamas until Palestine is liberated. On the other side, led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, there is a different approach. Despite condemning Israel’s violent reaction to the recent Islamist attack, this group maintains a strong relationship with the “Jewish State,” particularly from an economic standpoint.
Expectations of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas
Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas had high expectations for the summit, hoping for a stronger stance against Israel’s operations in Gaza. However, their hopes were not fulfilled. The Palestinian armed party expressed disappointment, stating that the meeting did not result in effective measures to stop the war against their people. They expected their Arab and Muslim brothers to use their political and economic influence to pressure Washington into ending the aggression against civilians and children. Similarly, Iran expressed concerns about certain clauses in the summit’s resolution, particularly those related to the recognition of the two-state solution and the borders of 1967 for Palestine. Iran firmly believes that Israel has no rights to Palestinian lands.
Two Blocks: Shiite Crescent vs. Saudi Arabia and Gulf Monarchies
The divide between the Shiite Crescent, led by Tehran, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies is evident in their contrasting positions. The Shiite Crescent rejects the two-state solution and calls for sanctions against Israel, while Saudi Arabia and its allies advocate for the end of Israeli occupation, the restoration of Palestinian rights, and the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This split reflects differing national interests and approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the Muslim world.
Outcomes of the Extraordinary Summit
The extraordinary summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) had significant outcomes that left some parties disappointed. The summit aimed to address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, but the results revealed a divergence of opinions within the Muslim world.
Disappointment of Hamas and Iran
Hamas and Iran expressed their disappointment with the summit’s outcomes. They had hoped for more effective measures and immediate mechanisms to halt the war against the Palestinian people. Osama Hamdan, a leader of Hamas, expected their Arab and Muslim counterparts to exert political and economic pressure on Washington to put an end to the aggression against civilians and children. Similarly, Iran voiced concerns about certain clauses in the summit’s resolution, particularly those related to the recognition of the two-state solution and the borders of 1967 for Palestine. Iran firmly believes that Israel has no rightful claim to Palestinian lands.
Historic Meetings and Diverging Positions
The summit witnessed historic meetings between leaders, such as the President of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, as well as the head of the Iranian executive and the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. However, these meetings also highlighted the diverging positions among the participating countries. While Tehran called for an immediate halt to the operation in Gaza and rejected the existence of an Israeli state, Saudi Arabia and its allies delivered a message more aligned with the United Nations’ stance. They emphasized the end of Israeli occupation, the restoration of Palestinian rights, and the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. These differing positions reflect the complex dynamics and national interests at play within the Muslim world.
Normalization and Economic Ties
The recent developments in the Arab-Muslim world have had implications for the normalization of relations and economic ties with Israel. The Arab countries that had been moving closer to Israel, including those involved in the Abraham Accords, initially condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, their positions seem to have softened in recent weeks, indicating a shift towards a more normalized approach.
Impact on Oil and Gas Prices
One interesting aspect to observe is the impact of these developments on oil and gas prices. Initially, there was some reaction in the market following the escalation of the conflict, but as the Arab countries did not show a strong commitment to the Palestinian cause, calm has returned. Oil and gas prices experienced fluctuations, with a temporary increase after the conflict began, but they have since stabilized. This suggests that the Arab countries’ economic interests may have influenced their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Economic Interests and Rapprochement with Israel
The emphasis on economic interests and the potential for rapprochement with Israel has played a significant role in shaping the positions of Arab countries. The governments that had been pursuing closer ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, had initially condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, they have also expressed their desire for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian conflict as part of a broader normalization process. This indicates that the national interests of these countries, which prioritize economic cooperation and regional stability, have influenced their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
In conclusion, the extraordinary summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation highlighted the division within the Muslim world regarding the Israeli operation in Gaza. While Iran and Hamas expected a stronger stance against Israel, the summit revealed a split between two blocks. Iran, representing the Shiite Crescent, called for sanctions against Israel and support for Hamas, rejecting the two-state solution. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies condemned the violent reaction of the Israeli government but maintained their economic ties with Israel. The outcome of the summit did not meet the expectations of Iran and Hamas, as it did not provide effective measures to stop the war. The Arab-Muslim front remains divided, and the crisis in Gaza seems to be moving towards normalization. Economic ties and national interests have influenced the positions of Arab countries, leading to a watering down of their condemnation of Israel. The appeals of the Palestinian president have fallen on deaf ears, with the Arab and Muslim world divided into two blocks. Overall, the summit demonstrated the complexities and challenges in achieving unity and a strong response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Following the flooding in Derna, Libya, Obama asked for donations from well-wishers to help respond to the worst tragedy in the country in recent history. Over 11,000 have reportedly died, and countless thousands of others are missing and displaced. What the man should be asking for, though, is forgiveness. Obama was US president in 2011 when NATO overthrew President Muammar Gaddafi and plunged one of Africa’s wealthiest countries into a failed state, with rival governments and warring factions. NATO’s 2011 actions led to the severity of the flooding in Derna. The collapsed dams showed signs of years of neglect. Compare this to the state’s capacity to respond to such crises during Gaddafi’s tenure. Libya even contributed to the recovery of the Maldives after a 2005 tsunami by providing $2 million. Even more shameful is that Africa’s best was done dirty by America’s first Black president. Cartoon by Bright Tetteh Ackwerh #Libya #Floods #BarackObama #Donations #History #MuammarGaddafi #NATO #Fyp #Ftp