Arab State Narratives on Normalization with Israel: Justifying Policy Reversal

Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1177/23477989231220444
M. Hallward, Taib Biygautane
{"title":"Arab State Narratives on Normalization with Israel: Justifying Policy Reversal","authors":"M. Hallward, Taib Biygautane","doi":"10.1177/23477989231220444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the Abraham Accords were announced in 2020, some lauded these deals as a groundbreaking advancement in Israeli–Arab relations, whereas others saw them as backstabbing the Palestinians. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API), largely ignored by Israel, offered normalized relations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the 1967 Occupied Territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and a resolution to the Palestinian refugee situation. However, the four Arab states that established relations with Israel under the aegis of the Abraham Accords did so despite Israel’s failure to fulfill API conditions. Given the dismay of many in the region regarding this move and the turnaround in decades of official policy toward Israel, this article investigates the rationale provided by the Arab states for making this diplomatic shift, drawing on quantitative and qualitative data. The study examines the messaging of Arab states and analyzes the economic, geostrategic, and sociocultural justifications in the official media outlets of the four states—the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, including comparisons with US and UK press. Specifically, it seeks to understand the justifications Arab state elites provided for shifting their policies toward Israel despite the historical conditions set by the API and whether they acknowledge the concerns of Palestinians in their discussion of the Accords. Quantitative findings suggest that media coverage of cooperation varied across the Arab signatories. The coverage in the UAE and Bahrain tended to be more frequent, optimistic, and focused on general and economic cooperation with Israel. In comparison, there tended to be more varied media coverage of the Accords in Sudan and Morocco. Qualitatively, results show that overall economic justifications tended to be used more frequently, and Morocco used sociocultural explanations more than others. Further, the agreements were not presented as peace agreements, unlike how the Accords were discussed in the US and UK press.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23477989231220444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When the Abraham Accords were announced in 2020, some lauded these deals as a groundbreaking advancement in Israeli–Arab relations, whereas others saw them as backstabbing the Palestinians. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API), largely ignored by Israel, offered normalized relations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the 1967 Occupied Territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and a resolution to the Palestinian refugee situation. However, the four Arab states that established relations with Israel under the aegis of the Abraham Accords did so despite Israel’s failure to fulfill API conditions. Given the dismay of many in the region regarding this move and the turnaround in decades of official policy toward Israel, this article investigates the rationale provided by the Arab states for making this diplomatic shift, drawing on quantitative and qualitative data. The study examines the messaging of Arab states and analyzes the economic, geostrategic, and sociocultural justifications in the official media outlets of the four states—the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, including comparisons with US and UK press. Specifically, it seeks to understand the justifications Arab state elites provided for shifting their policies toward Israel despite the historical conditions set by the API and whether they acknowledge the concerns of Palestinians in their discussion of the Accords. Quantitative findings suggest that media coverage of cooperation varied across the Arab signatories. The coverage in the UAE and Bahrain tended to be more frequent, optimistic, and focused on general and economic cooperation with Israel. In comparison, there tended to be more varied media coverage of the Accords in Sudan and Morocco. Qualitatively, results show that overall economic justifications tended to be used more frequently, and Morocco used sociocultural explanations more than others. Further, the agreements were not presented as peace agreements, unlike how the Accords were discussed in the US and UK press.
分享
查看原文
阿拉伯国家关于与以色列关系正常化的说法:为政策逆转辩护
2020 年宣布《亚伯拉罕协议》时,一些人称赞这些协议是以色列-阿拉伯关系的突破性进展,而另一些人则认为这些协议是在背后捅巴勒斯坦人一刀。2002 年的《阿拉伯和平倡议》(Arab Peace Initiative,API)在很大程度上被以色列所忽视,该倡议提出以从 1967 年被占领土撤军、建立巴勒斯坦国和解决巴勒斯坦难民问题为交换条件,实现与以色列关系正常化。然而,在《亚伯拉罕协定》的支持下与以色列建立关系的四个阿拉伯国家是在以色列未能满足 API 条件的情况下与以色列建立关系的。鉴于该地区许多人对这一举动以及数十年来官方对以色列政策的转变感到失望,本文利用定量和定性数据调查了阿拉伯国家做出这一外交转变的理由。研究考察了阿拉伯国家传递的信息,分析了四个国家--阿联酋、巴林、摩洛哥和苏丹--官方媒体在经济、地缘战略和社会文化方面的理由,包括与美国和英国媒体的比较。具体而言,它试图了解阿拉伯国家精英在《阿拉伯和平协议》设定的历史条件下改变对以色列政策的理由,以及他们在讨论《协议》时是否承认巴勒斯坦人的关切。定量研究结果表明,各阿拉伯签署国的媒体对合作的报道各不相同。阿联酋和巴林的报道往往更频繁、更乐观,并侧重于与以色列的一般和经济合作。相比之下,苏丹和摩洛哥的媒体对《协定》的报道往往更加多样化。从定性角度看,结果表明,总体经济理由往往被更频繁地使用,而摩洛哥比其他国家更多使用社会文化方面的解释。此外,与美国和英国媒体讨论《协议》的方式不同,《协议》并不是作为和平协议来介绍的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信