Normalization: What good is the survival of the Arab League in light of the division among its members over relations with Israel?

Zaki believes that the rotating presidency of the League Council is a very important thing for any member state of the League, and that these countries organize this issue with an opening and closing statement and a clear plan of action that takes time to come to fruition. to prepare. , who is not available with the sudden Palestinian apologies for ending this session.

Palestine apologized about two weeks ago for ending the presidency of the current League Council session, in the context of what Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki described as the position of the League. General Secretariat of the League in support of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in normalizing relations with Israel, in violation of the Arab Peace Initiative.

The State of Qatar has also decided not to accept the rotating presidency of the League Council after the Palestinian apologies, while retaining its right to preside over the next session in March.

The affair was repeated with Kuwait, the Comoros and Lebanon. And recently, Libya apologized for the presidency of the League Council, indicating that the circumstances are not conducive to this case.

Libyan Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad al-Qiblawi said in a tweet on Twitter that his country was eager to exercise its right to chair the Arab League Council “on better terms than the current one. “.

Al-Qiblawi added that Libya adheres to its right to exercise the rotating presidency of the University Council in accordance with the rules of procedure and the order in force.

Observers believe that the apology reflects a decline in the League’s role at regional and global levels, in light of growing differences between Arab countries on major issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the crises in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, as well as relations with Turkey and Iran.

Khattar Abu Diab, a Paris-based political analyst, says the Arab League is governed by consensus among its member states and that there is no real democratic voting method to make a decision.

Abu Diab added in his interview with the BBC that Arab countries remain captive to their own interests and regional and international alliances, and that is why the decision – according to Abu Diab – is not purely independent and does not reflect not always the Arab consensus, as he says.

Abu Diab stresses that the solution lies in transforming this institution into a platform for economic, cultural and social cooperation, instead of limiting its interests to political issues which are still the subject of conflicts and disagreements.

Abdullah Al-Ashaal, former deputy foreign minister and former presidential candidate in Egypt, says the role of the Arab League has completely ended with the outbreak of the “Arab Spring revolutions” and that it no longer responds to aspirations of the Arab street in unity and embraces the main issues, among which the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Syrian crisis Interventions from outside the Arab region have become the main influence in most of these crises.

Al-Ashaal says that if the pace of decisions by Arab countries in favor of normalization with Israel continues, the role of the Arab League will be completely finished in a short period of time, as this issue represented the minimum level of consensus. between the Arabs. countries, despite the international external pressures they face, such as those exerted by States. United States of America

Al-Ashaal explains that the Arab League will end as a regional organization in the next two years at the latest, and will be replaced by the “New Middle East Organization” led by Israel with the support of the international community and the United States. America, noting that there is no political will among Arab leaders to reform the Arab League or change the model of decision-making within it.

Atef Saadawi, a researcher at the Arab Center for Research and Studies, disagrees with this view and says in an interview with the BBC that there is no alternative to the Arab League like locomotive to manage joint Arab action, as it represents the minimum level for consensus and to sit at the dialogue table on issues of concern to its member states.

Saadawi explains that the past period has witnessed attempts to reform the Arab League by adopting initiatives to change the charter of the Arab League, change the mode of decision-making and support its institutions financially and politically. However, these initiatives “lacked a minimum of dealing with the regional and international variables that plague the region. Among them are the war on terrorism or the evolution of international views on the management of thorny issues in the region such as the Israeli-Arab conflict, the crises in Syria, Libya and Yemen. like the relations between the countries of the region and Turkey and Iran.

The researcher believes that true reform requires reform initiatives that take into account the fact that there are Arab-Arab differences on fundamental issues and that there is a divergence of interests and concerns. According to him, the reform is “not a structural legal reform but a political reform”.

As for Nabil Abdel Fattah, professor of political science at the University of Cairo, he believes that the Arab League “has never been a locomotive for joint Arab action”. And that its existence was “temporary” to create a platform for countries that were under colonialism in the 1940s and 1960s.

Abdel Fattah says the Arab League has gone through major ascension stages and challenges since its establishment in 1945 as the world’s oldest regional organization, but suffered a major setback after the 1967 defeat and death of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had a nationalist vision calling for the unification of Arab decision-making in the face of international challenges and major crises.

Political science professor says that the Arab League at this stage remains captive of a conflict between two main camps, the first being the Gulf countries which put their money on the political decision of the League, and the other the founding countries of the League, including Egypt, Algeria and others, who seek independence for the Arab ruling and amend the charter of the League. For more political and structural reforms, he said.

The Arab League’s charter says it seeks to strengthen ties between Arab countries, maintain their independence, and preserve the security and integrity of the Arab region in various areas, but the reality on the ground shows that it has become an arena for conflict and the expression of divergent political wills and the settlement of Arab-Arab disputes, while awaiting the existence of what some describe as a political will for reform which takes it out of the circle of narrow interests to go towards prospects of cooperation in various fields.