(July 10, 2022 / Jewish Policy Center) While Americans and Israelis are most concerned about the weakness and ineffectiveness of the technical terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, our Arab allies in the region—Saudi Arabia in particular—are far more concerned about the geostrategic implications after which the United States deliberately abandons its regional position, indicating Washington’s desperation to reach an agreement at almost any cost.
Cultural foundations of regional policy
To understand how disturbing American behavior is to our regional Arab allies, we need to understand how different their policies are from ours. Americans believe in the universality of our concept of freedom. Thus, we tend to give short shrift to the influence of culture and civilization on the political mentality of countries. In the Middle East, along with the physical remains of ancient civilizations, the politics of the region are based on the remains of these cultures.
The political imagery of many Islamic cultures derives from their nomadic, tribal, and clan origins, which were hardly weakened by the 500-year rule of the Ottoman Turks, as they too come from a nomadic culture.
In some cases, Islam overshadows an older urban culture that still shapes politics. Iran, for example, must be understood in this way, with the image of a poplar tree bending in the wind. The tree is the ancient core of Persian civilization and the wind is the veneer of Islam.
Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
The core of Arabia—the Saudi peninsula, the Hejaz (Arabian coastal peninsula), the desert region of Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, and the southern Gulf coast—is deeply tribal in nature. And its culture has a long history that dates back to before Islam.
In ancient times, the most important Arab tribes filled the power spaces between the great urban civilizations, rather than functioning as empires themselves. The period from 100 BC to 700 AD was characterized by regional competition between the global powers of the time – the Roman Empire and its successors, the Byzantine Empire, Persia and Abyssinia. The Arabs were divided in their loyalties and aligned their interests accordingly. The Ghassanid Arabs, mostly in the western end of the Arabian regions, aligned themselves with Rome and to some extent with Abyssinia. The Lakhmids (al-Manadhirha or Banu Lakhm) in the east and on the coast of the Persian Gulf were inclined to help the Persian Empire. There were many Jews living in the Lower Hejaz, especially in the Medina region. The Lakhmid attempt to align with Persia a century before Muhammad to create an independent state in rebellion against Rome and Abyssinia is important for understanding not only the theological ferment but also the geopolitical influences that shaped early Islamic politics.
The rise of the Umayyad and Abbasid empires of Arabia did not change the tribal nature of Arab culture. True, independent Arab empires were anchored to the urban centers of Damascus and Baghdad, and they took some traits from the very urban Byzantines and Persians. But these were rather short-lived, ahistorical anomalies. For example, Baghdad fell to the Persian Buyids in 965 AD.
The tribal soul, not the ethos of an urban empire, and the strategic behavior that soul engenders, is readily apparent in current Arab politics. One need look no further than the most important myth cycle of the Byzantine world – Digenis Akritas (The Two-Blood Border Guard). It describes the frontier world of the Byzantine Empire from the 5th to the 12th centuries. century in the deserts of present-day Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Even the deep-rooted tribal and clan nature of these “Byzantine” Arab border guards cannot fail to impress.
The main lesson is that the major Arab tribes—indeed, the greater Arab world—tended to operate in distinctly tribal ways within the power grids between geopolitical empires that they saw as something of a “supertribal.”
When Muhammad in 628 CE wrote his letters to the Persian emperor Khosrow II, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, the Abyssinian king Negus Armah, and a few others, the tone was that of a tribal leader of one great theological clan calling on another to convert and join. him. Although acting independently, the Arabs ultimately wanted to be protected and empowered by the supreme power of the day—the supremely strong horse. Although Islam spread throughout the region and much of the known world at the time, and although Arabs filled the ruling classes of many lands, the tribal spirit and the absolute need to align themselves behind a strong horse for protection and advantage remained.
The issue of defense is thus the basis of the tribal core of Islam and its civilizations. To understand what the JPCOA means regionally, one must consider the dynamics of intertribal hostilities. Specifically, a cycle of revenge and counter-retribution between tribes for murder. Such a cycle ends only when the tribe signals that it has lifted its protection status from one of its members. This means that he is fair game and can be murdered with impunity and thus the cycle is broken. Equally at risk is any Arab who has been rejected by his tribe and who believes he has transcended his tribe, or who has a clouded or confused ancestry with no clear tribal lineage.
This tribal nature is intertwined with early Islamic history and is directly related to the Prophet Muhammad and his personal circumstances. Islam cannot be separated from its historical origins or Arabic roots. Moreover, tribal traditions and “laws” have special validity in Islam alongside doctrine. This makes it quite different from, say, Catholicism, where doctrinal validity trumps all other considerations.
Muhammad’s message threatened the powerful tribal aristocracy of Mecca. His ideology/theology made him suspect and separated him from his fellow Mekkas and their tribal elite, and they essentially decided to eliminate him.
And yet Muhammad could live safely in Mecca. This was because his powerful uncle abu Talib ibn Abd al-Mutalib, head of the all-powerful banu Hashemi clan of the Quraish tribe, extended his patronage over Muhammad after the death of the Prophet’s parents.
The other Quraysh tribes became increasingly irritated by Muhammad’s message and tried to persuade Abu Talib to abandon him. Then they tried to bribe him, confront him, and finally boycott him and his family in trade and marriages. But as long as Abu Talib protected Muhammad, these powerful elites could do nothing. But by the time abu Talib died (619 CE), followed a few months later by Muhammad’s wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Muhammad was alone and essentially had a death sentence. Even abu Talib’s brother, abu Lahab, refused to defend him. Muhammad knew he was fair game and doomed, so he had to flee to Medina.
USA and Israel as tribes, not nations
In this context, Arabs do not understand the US as a nation in the sense of modern, post-Westphalian Europe. They see it as more than the most powerful clan on Earth, a clan of clans—the modern equivalent of the Byzantine, Persian, and Abyssinian empires. Think of us as “banu Amrika”, the “children” or tribe of the Americans. The other, weaker clans see us, the banu Amrika, as patrons of the confederate league. The clans and tribes of the region align themselves with us and pledge their allegiance in exchange for enjoying the umbrella of our power and protection that comes with it. Similarly, the Israelis are not considered a parliamentary democracy in the Western sense, but the “banu Israil” and its prime minister as a Jewish tribal leader.
In terms of tribes, US concessions to Iran, whose declared goal is to destroy our local allied tribes – banu Saudi (Saudi Arabia), banu Maktoum (UAE), banu al-Khalifa (Bahrain) and “banu Israil” (Israel) – means that the very fact, that we are negotiating and making concessions with Tehran suggests that we are lowering, or potentially even raising, our protection over them. Thus their lives are forfeited, and anyone, internal or external, who wishes to kill them is permitted to do so without fear of retribution. The Saudis, Bahrainis, Emiratis and Israelis are now alone and have been given the death sentence of their own strong horse. Worse, the US has essentially anointed Iran as the new regional power.
The Arabs living in the area react with an unusually blunt, pointed and pointed word, not out of temptation but out of survival. They must immediately find a new strong horse, a new patron, or they are dead. Knowing that they can’t really come to terms with Iran, their only hope is to somehow jump from Tehran and head straight for the “strong horses” Russia and China, hoping to use oil power, financial clout and strategic concessions to make themselves useful and useful to Moscow. Beijing. But until they secure protectorate status from those powers—which is unlikely because they are so identified with American power in the region—they will first have to scramble, follow American precedent, and bend the knee to Iran, despite the knowledge that Tehran is likely to do so. does not allow them to survive. They have no choice but to flounder or die because continuing to pin their hopes on the United States is a path of certain death.
Israel is, of course, a Western country, and the tribal construct is not inherent in its understanding of itself. Acting on the Western understanding of their communities may work internally for Israel’s Arab citizens, but it cannot work strategically for Israel’s regional position and relationships. Indeed, it is doubtful that it can even work internally. Mansour Abbas and his Ra’am party joined the outgoing coalition government not out of a kumbaya-like sense of accepting the legitimacy of Zionism, but because Abbas insisted that the Jews were permanent and powerful. Thus, in order to secure its interests, the Arab community must accept Israel’s protection and recognize Israel’s power, wealth, and assets. Basically, this is a choice made by the Druze leadership, just like the Arab tribal leaders of the city of Abu Ghosh in 1948, which has made it a developed and popular tourist village not only for foreigners but also for Israelis.
Israel may have an urban soul and a Western outlook, but it lives in this region and must realize that it too is now considered a tribe marked for death by its patron.
Israel’s perception between strength and weakness
When Israel appears weak and concedes on an issue like Jerusalem, Jewish history or Jewish rights, it compromises itself and devalues what it can offer its Druze and Arabs. This forces these communities to distance themselves from Israel and even reach out to Israel’s enemies and engage in violence. This happened during the Oslo process and is about to happen again as the Biden administration is seen as abandoning Israel. Moreover, Israel continues to see goodwill gestures as a form of strength, while the Arabs see it as weakness. It is in this context that the rising tide of Arab violence and disregard for Israeli or Jewish sensitivities must be seen not only in Jerusalem, but also in the Israeli cities of Lodi, Ramleh, Jaffa, Haifa, Beersheva and across the Negev desert. The US increasingly views Israel as an orphan and shows weakness. Thus, he has become questionable as a strong defensive horse.
From a regional perspective, Israel is at a crossroads. There are three ways to do this: He can delude himself into believing that he is still under US protection, which in the context of regional understandings means agreeing to its removal. It may scramble like its Arab cousins to catch up with Russia and China. Or he can use his raw strength to rise as the strongest tribe in the region and become a strong horse himself. The second path fails because Israel’s fate is intrinsically tied to the West. This leaves Israel with the first option of death by delusion or the third option of establishing itself as a regional power.
At present, the Arab tribes have only the first or second path to choose. This means that they face death because, as with Israel, the other path will eventually fail – certainly with Iran, but also because Russia and China will never truly become their patrons. If Israel chooses the third way and emerges as a strong horse, it will give the Arabs a way to survive, Israel will be their new protector. But Israel must act to prove that it is a strong horse.
In many ways, it was the expectation that Israel would choose a third path that led the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco – and perhaps soon the Saudis – to make peace with Israel. Moreover, it is the tribal foundations of this peace, not Islamic teaching, that carry the Abrahamic covenants. There was no theological revolution that led to Abu Dhabi becoming Zionist. It was a sober politics of survival and defensive geopolitics.
But it is also a sign of the extreme dangers Israel has faced in its friendly relations with the United States and in managing the demands of its internal coalition in recent months.
In March of this year, two Arab-Israeli summits took place. One was located in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, and except for the United States. Another Sde in Boker, Israel, involved the US. The first revolved around an Arab-Israeli dynamic that was unimaginable just a few years ago, not only in its warmth but also in the seriousness of its shared strategic purpose. It aims to create an independent regional cooperation structure that will jointly address Iranian and global crises, such as the impending shortage of grain and raw materials. This was perfectly symbolized by the startling and moving speech of His Excellency Shaykh Abdallah bin Zayid, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates, in which he expressed his regret that he knew so little about Israel and decided to rectify this situation. The summit marked America’s irrelevance as a result of its collapse as a strong horse.
The second summit was the US-Israeli-Arab regional meeting, where America tried to redefine the agenda and intervene between Israelis and Arabs by presenting the Palestinian issue within the framework of implicit Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority. In fact, the summit should have been just an Israeli-Arab summit, a continuation of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, without the Americans. Its purpose should have been strategic planning by regional partners for a period of American absence or even hostility.
Bringing in the United States changed the dynamics of the summit and turned that part of the summit into a disaster. Biden’s team was empowered to reassert its primary goals of trying to maintain America’s fast-dispersing control over regional allies; sabotaging emerging operational cooperation among regional partners on an effective strategy for confrontation and even war against Iran; and reaffirming America’s obsession with Palestine.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement at the summit not only admirably attempted these goals, but also humiliated the Israeli host and registered a dig at the previous administration’s partisans, presenting the idea that the Abraham Accords were not important or true peace. Blinken said “agreements are not a substitute for progress by the Palestinians and the Israelis.”
This put Israel on the defensive, blaming and shaming it publicly in front of its regional partners. At a joint press conference ahead of the summit between Blinken and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, there was no mention of Palestinian terror (which had already claimed four elderly Israelis the previous day), P.A. refusal to negotiate directly with the Israelis over the past decade, constant incitement that led to a dangerous war last year and threatens an internal Arab uprising in Israel and the P.A. perpetuation of the wage-killing policy. Put bluntly, the focus was on “curbing settlement expansion, settler violence, and stopping the eviction of Palestinians from their homes.” US behavior tarnished Israel’s image as a strong horse worthy of alliance and made it struggle for American approval.
Even more disturbing was the news that Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz – who embodies Israel’s collective defense system and its strategic “concept” – even tried to P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan, who is increasingly positioning himself as a champion of Palestinian Arab nationalism. Gantz’s botched intervention reveals a deep misunderstanding of regional political and geostrategic dynamics that would be maddening if it weren’t so terrible.
However, the second summit could have been saved if Israel had rejected the American challenge and signaled to its Arab interlocutors that Israel is determined to assert itself as a strong horse and regional power even without American consent or approval. If Prime Minister Bennett had publicly reprimanded Minister Blinken, it would have shown the Arabs present that Israel is on the same page as them, and that it is such a strong ally and confident enough to stand its ground. even in tension with the American administration.
It is tempting to compare the faltering of the United States’ regional position with the collapse of British and French positions in the late 1950s and 1960s, which was indeed catastrophic. This exposed the region to Soviet encroachment and ushered in a new era of radical indigenous-inspired challenges to traditional leadership, the long-term effects of which we continue to suffer.
And yet, even this cataclysm pales in comparison to the current collapse of the United States’ position. The retreat of the British and French six decades ago transitioned seamlessly into a parallel rise in American power that largely offset the negative effects of the retreat. There is no global power that can replace the Americans except our adversaries China or Russia.
Regionally, Israel can fill the void left by the US and cushion the impending collapse of American power. Perhaps it can help our withered allies survive, preserve some of our regional interests, control our regional adversaries, and prevent our global adversaries from taking total control of the region.
But while Israel is powerful, it is not a global power. What is needed is an American administration that regains its senses and returns to leadership and protection of its regional allies.
David Wurmser, Ph.D. is a senior analyst and director of the Global Antisemitism and US-Israel Relations Project at the Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum. He served as Middle East adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
What is social hegemony?
Social hegemony is more than power. It is the overwhelming power grab and dominance of one group over another. To see also : Joint Statement of the Board of Directors of the Negev Forum – United States Department of State. The idea is often attributed to Italian political theorist Antonio Francesco Gramsci, who was imprisoned during Benito Mussolini’s regime.
What is Hegemony in Sociology Example? The theory of hegemony is based on the Marxist theory of the ruling class and the working class. Hegemony can be defined as the abnormality of society. For example, cultural structures are controlled by the dominant class and given to the working class as common sense.
What is hegemony in society?
INTERNATIONAL: “Hegemony” Hegemony describes the dominance of one social group or class in a society. This control can be exercised subtly rather than forcefully through cultural means and economic power, and relies on a mixture of consent and coercion.
What does hegemony mean?
Hegemony refers to a type of dominance that is based primarily on the consent of dominant people and groups, rather than solely on the coercion and force of a leader. Read also : Ben & Jerry’s is suing parent company Unilever over the sale of its Israeli business. The term is often used loosely to denote total dominance, but its precise definition has much greater analytical power.
What is an example of a hegemony?
The definition of hegemony is the control or dominance of one group over another. An example of hegemony is the leadership of a student government in a school. Read also : All Politics Must Be Local – And Response. Leadership or dominance, e.g. of one country or nation over that of another.
What is the synonym of hegemony?
noun. 1’Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871′ leadership, dominance, supremacy, supremacy, supremacy, predominance, supremacy, authority, mastery, control, power, sway, rule, sovereignty. rare predominance, supremacy, prepotence, prepotency, prepollence.
What is an example of hegemony? The definition of hegemony is the control or dominance of one group over another. An example of hegemony is the leadership of a student government in a school. Leadership or dominance, e.g. of one country or nation over that of another.
What is the opposite of hegemonic?
Opposite of controlling or dominating someone or something. subjugation. dominance. submission. subjugation.
What is hegemony in simple terms?
Definition of hegemony 1: overwhelming influence or authority over others: dominance was fought for hegemony in Asia. 2: Social, cultural, ideological or economic influence of a dominant group.
What is the synonym of powers?
Some common synonyms for power are authority, command, control, supremacy, jurisdiction, and sway. While all of these words mean “the right to rule or rule or determine,” power refers to the ability to exercise force, authority, or influence.
What is meant by hegemony class 12?
The word “hegemony” means the rule or dominance of one country over others because of its military, economic, political power and cultural superiority.
What is hegemony in world politics? Hegemony comes from the Greek word hÄ“gemonía, which means leadership and rule. In international relations, hegemony refers to the ability of an actor with overwhelming power to shape the international system through both coercive and non-coercive means.
What is hegemony and its types?
Answer: In general, leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others, is called hegemony. Power, dominance and control are the three main characteristics of hegemony. For example, the US is currently a powerful country that is trying to dominate other countries in Asia and Africa.
What is hegemony hard power Class 12?
Hegemony means leadership or predominance in world politics. Hard power hegemony is related to the relations, patterns and balance of military capabilities between states. The military power of the United States is superior to that of any other nation.
