The recent official announcement of the normalization of relations between the Kingdom of Morocco and Israel has met with a state of controversy in Arab and Islamic media circles, as well as through social media, a situation that is absolutely not absent from any political decision or act that has taken place in the Middle East region specifically in recent years. The polarization of opinions is the most prominent phenomenon that Arab social media has witnessed, regardless of any objective consideration or rational calculation regarding any given topic.
Polarization, controversy, debates and verbal battles therefore submerge many scenes of politics, economics, even media and football in our Arab region, and it is a reality that no one can deny, and on this Basically, the debate on any subject, question or decision concerning one country or the other is a recurring scene. This is what happened regarding the sovereign decision taken by the UAE before establishing official relations with Israel, and it was also repeated – albeit to a relatively lighter degree – in the Bahraini cases and Sudanese, and finally concerning the case of the decision of the Kingdom of Morocco to take a similar step to what other Arab countries have decided.
There is another point that must be underlined with analysis and opinion before approaching the Moroccan decision to establish relations with Israel, namely that such decisions of a very important strategic nature are sovereign decisions of the States, and this has two important meanings, the first of which is that they are decisions related to the exercise of acts of national sovereignty of States, that is, they represent a purely internal matter that no external party , whether a state, individual, agency or entity, cannot interfere with them and attempt to influence them in any way, and such decisions are ‘one of the manifestations of the independence of national decision-making on questions and subjects directly or indirectly linked to the strategic interests of States and peoples. . The second meaning is not distinct from the first, but rather is closely related to it, because it presents itself as a description of its nature and its determinants, and by this we mean that sovereign decisions are taken according to very precise criteria. and sensitive and after an in-depth study of profit and loss accounts, whether at the national level or at the level of state links and alliances and organic historical relations that bind these states to other groups of states and peoples, such as this is the case with the Arab group, which is linked by historical, national, religious and linguistic ties and deep commonalities that are difficult to abandon by any state, regardless of the expected strategic return. .
Therefore, it is not easy for an observer or interested person to draw quick conclusions when evaluating such decisions, or to say that they came in response to pressure from an international or regional party. , or in search of a political or economic return, or that they neglect some element, or aspect or dimension in matters of foreign policy of that State, its circles of work, its interests, its priorities, etc., this are – by their nature – very difficult decisions because they are complex and include an overlap of many variables and influences in regional and international relations, and they have consequences and repercussions, both positive and negative, which means that qualifying such hasty decisions or not is a hasty affair in itself, because some seem – in this case – like the people portrayed by the Arab proverb, those people who qualify as “swimmers” this ux who just stand on the beach just expressing what they see as advice!
And when we come to the agreement of the brother Kingdom of Morocco regarding the normalization of relations with Israel, we must examine it – analytically and objectively – in the light of several considerations, notably that it is not the first such decision in the Arab world, as there are similar Arab measures in place since the last quarter of the 20th century, as well as what has been concluded in recent months, including the position of the Palestinian Authority itself, who is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to establish official relations with Israel. The other consideration is that it is a sovereign decision which belongs to the above-mentioned decisions of a special nature taken by States on the basis of accounts well-studied nationals, and therefore no one should bring up charges of treason or any other suspicious charges when considering or commenting on such decisions, and this, of course, does not deny that it is permissible to agree or disagree with these decisions, as is the case with any policy, decision or measure taken by certain countries in accordance with the imperatives of their national interests.
There is also another consideration, no less important than the above, namely that the decision of the Kingdom of Morocco to establish relations with Israel was not a free political subsidy, nor without grounds of national interests of which it emanated. Just as the UAE’s decision to establish relations with Israel came as a historic breakthrough in the stagnant, if not icy waters, in the rigid environment of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and as an original reflection away from traditional solutions for to advance the peace process and take advantage of the cooperation opportunities available with Israel in the scientific, technological and economic fields in a way that improves the UAE’s global competitiveness plans, the decision of the Kingdom of Morocco was also accompanied a very important strategic return, represented by the recognition by the United States of Morocco’s sovereignty over the Sahara. It is a recognition that Moroccan diplomacy has long sought, and which responds to one of the most important national priorities of the Moroccan state and people to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity, and whoever does not appreciate the importance of such a priority, does not know what the Sahara issue represents in Moroccan history and national consciousness.
In international relations and in the world of politics in general, the language of interests should not be absent, and emotions and feelings should not dominate. In particular, when interests loom and appear on the horizon for a party, it must therefore begin to harvest them, as long as this does not cause the loss of another position, does not conflict with it, or n ‘will not negatively affect another priority issue which is in the interest of its rulers and its people, and that is exactly what happened with regard to the Moroccan sovereign decision. Moroccan diplomacy has achieved a victory and a vital gain without changing or altering its position to support and support the cause and the Palestinian people until this brotherly people obtains its legitimate rights and establishes its independent state.
