Will Arab mediators withdraw from their mission?

These are questions that arise as the Israeli side not only continues and expands the scope of the genocide, but also continues to challenge the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and the Security Council, and practices defiance and rampage that does not hesitate to disparage the American president himself, and weaken his electoral position with the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Congress, which he received as support for the Republican candidate Donald Trump, and counting on his victory in the presidency next November. This prompted New York Times writer Thomas Friedman to say that President Biden stood by Netanyahu throughout the stages of the war, but the latter did not hesitate to stab him in the back at the end of his term.

The bottom line is that Netanyahu, who has been floundering in the war so far, is acting as if he has won it, being stubborn in imposing his conditions, and adding whatever he wants to them, which leads to prolonging the fighting and thwarting the mediation mission. Many have criticized this, to the point that the famous Zionist writer Ari Shavit warned in Haaretz of the consequences of his policy in an article titled “Israel is breathing its last breaths.”

Recent opinion polls in Israel reflect his declining popularity, with 61% saying they do not support Netanyahu remaining in office and do not trust his handling of the war, especially after the killing of 6 prisoners in a tunnel in Rafah last month. This incident brought back anti-Netanyahu demonstrations in Tel Aviv, backed by unprecedented strikes.

Note that official American statements in recent weeks have been talking about Hamas obstructing the ceasefire deal by adding new conditions to its position (which the movement denied), and Washington used this as a pretext to postpone the announcement of the final American paper that was to be presented to both parties. There was no explanation for this other than holding Hamas alone responsible for the obstruction, without any reference to Netanyahu’s role, which the overwhelming majority of commentators inside and outside Israel have come to denounce, with the exception of US State Department officials. While President Biden hinted at it with a shy gesture in which he said that their leader “did not do what he should have done.”

The campaign to condemn Hamas was read as a call for Arab mediators to renew and intensify pressure on the movement to accept the American ideas presented to stop the fighting, even though they were considered to be in line with the Israeli position.

The witness is that the options have become very narrow in light of the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance fighters and their insistence on a permanent cessation of fighting, a complete withdrawal, and ensuring freedom of return to the Strip. In return, Netanyahu responded by declaring his rejection of these basic demands and continuing the aggression, leaving no room for mediators to move except in one direction, which is to accept proposals that open the doors to meeting the Israeli demands, which is the role played by the American administration that hosts them.

The main observation in this regard is that Hamas cannot retreat a single step from its declared position and principles in the battle after the heavy price the Palestinians paid as a result of the fighting. They have no choice but to continue the resistance or await annihilation.

This is the same call that was made by the leader of the Native American resistance, Tecumseh, in his famous speech that he addressed to a meeting of representatives of the Indian tribes at the beginning of the nineteenth century. He wanted to use it to mobilize them to confront the invasion of those he described as strangers with pale faces who came from distant lands to steal his country and establish what was called the United States of America. These are the same descriptions that apply to the strangers who began invading Palestine from 1948 until now.

It is true that the world has changed from what it was two centuries ago. The Palestinians are still fighting the pale-faced strangers who came to steal their homeland. Although they, like the Red Indians, fought their battle alone, they distinguished themselves from them in that their struggle continued in the presence of a surrounding nation whose peoples embraced them all the time. It did not do its duty, but it did not die.

Unfortunately, this nation has great potential that has provided it with many options for resistance, support, or threatening to pressure the American-Israeli side, at least on the diplomatic and economic level (no recall of ambassadors, no boycott of any kind, and no threatening of the oil weapon), and this is a not insignificant loophole that has weakened the effectiveness of the role of Arab mediators.

So far, the failure of the mediation efforts has not been declared, but it is certain that they did not succeed. In light of the immunity enjoyed by the Israeli occupation, the attempt to employ the Arab side to support Israel not only harms the reputation of the mediators, but also constitutes an insult to them.

Which begs the difficult question: Do the mediators still have hope that they will continue their mission, or would it be better for them to resort to the weakest of faith and withdraw since they are not able to perform their duty? And in this case, what is the price that must be paid for that?

*Quoted from Al Jazeera Net