Practices Amid Genocide
Arab Regimes: Foundational Political Function in Practice - Part I
This article constitutes the first part of a three-part series seeking to deconstruct the functional structure of Arab regimes. The series proceeds from an analysis of these regimes’ practices during the ongoing genocide in Gaza, not as moral deviation or betrayal, but as a natural extension of their political function.
The second part will examined the historical formation of these regimes, outlining the structural reasons that compel them to perform their current role and explaining why, by virtue of the function for which they were established, they cannot be part of any emancipatory project.
The third part will reveal the core pillars upon which the dependent Arab order rests, demonstrating why Gaza, through its model of resistance, represents an existential threat to this system.
I dedicate this series to Gaza and its martyrs,
and in particular to the martyr, spokesperson of the nation, Hudayfa Al Kahlout.
I recite his words to history:
“…Our enemy is supplied by the most powerful oppressive forces in the world with endless convoys of weapons and ammunition, while the regimes and powers of our nation watch as their brothers are killed by the tens of thousands and starved…
O leaders of this Islamic and Arab nation, O its elites, major parties, and scholars… your necks are burdened with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents who were betrayed by your silence. This criminal Nazi enemy would not have committed this genocide before your eyes and ears had it not felt secure from punishment, guaranteed your silence, and purchased your abandonment…!”
Neither Deviation nor Moral Failure, but Political and Foundational Function
Where are the Arab regimes?
Why do they not intervene to stop the genocide?
These questions have echoed across public opinion for months amid an ongoing genocide that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and inflicted massive destruction upon both people and infrastructure. In parallel, a range of practices has unfolded, too numerous to confine to a single article, some marked by striking political and moral shamelessness. These demand public and analytical scrutiny as they are clear indicators of the magnitude of hypocrisy between rhetoric and reality.
What we are witnessing today cannot be regarded as a political deviation or a temporary malfunction in the performance of the Arab regimes. Rather, it constitutes a systematic pattern of behavior that clarifies the function and role these regimes perform within the regional geopolitical order.
The Egyptian regime allowed bulldozers to enter through the Rafah crossing, with an expert team, under the pretext of searching for bodies of Israeli soldiers. This followed the announcement of a “ceasefire” while more than ten thousand Palestinians remained missing beneath the rubble of their destroyed homes. At the same time, the Egyptian regime kept the crossing closed to humanitarian aid. This was not neutrality; it was direct participation in the siege of Gaza by prioritizing the security of the Israeli occupying power over the lives of Palestinian victims.
The field dynamics are closely aligned with the economic dimension. During the genocide, the Egyptian regime under Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi concluded the largest gas purchase agreement with the occupying state, valued at approximately $35 billion; an amount nearly equivalent to half of the financial losses incurred by the Israeli entity since the beginning of the latest war on Gaza, thus reaffirming its commitment to deepening economic and political dependency.
The ongoing genocide did not prevent the Jordanian regime from continuing security and intelligence coordination with the occupation, including the arrest of resistance fighters and the dismantling of resistance cells in Jordan. At the same time preventing any attempt to transfer weapons or provide tangible support to the resistance in Palestine. The systematic killing of the Palestinian people did not halt the continuation of trade agreements or import of natural gas and water from the zionist entity. This shows how dependency on natural resources is embedded in normalisation with the entity.
The Qatari regime presents itself as a mediator in the Gaza genocide. Rather than confronting the occupation, its mediation is confined to policing a conditional “calm” within American-Israeli limits, deliberately avoiding political pressure and leverage necessary to halt the genocide. Even financial aid is delivered only with Israeli and American approval, not to liberate Gaza or empower the resistance, but as an instrument to facilitate the continuation of a “soft” form of annihilation.
During the genocide, the Saudi regime worked to contain the resistance by demonizing it and labeling it “terrorism”, diplomatically isolating it and attributing responsibility for the genocide to it. This contributed to eroding Arab sympathy and redirecting condemnation away from the occupation and toward the resistance. In this way, the moral and political legitimacy was stripped from the resistance, while calls for “de-escalation” advanced in a manner serving the elimination of resistance rather than the cessation of massacres.
This position falls within a broader policy framework of dismantling the resistance axis and transforming the struggle from a confrontation with the zionist entity into intra-Arab disputes under the pretext of “counterterrorism”. This discourse is not new; it is a direct extension of zionist propaganda promoted for decades, now deployed by the Saudi regime as an official instrument to withdraw legitimacy from any movement resisting hegemony.
The Moroccan regime entered into arms deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars with major Israeli companies, foremost among them Elbit Systems. These included advanced artillery systems, air defense platforms, drones, and partnerships in military manufacturing. Notably, several of these deals were executed or expanded concurrently with the ongoing genocide in Gaza. These military agreements were concluded within the framework of the 2020 Abraham Normalization Accords, which have made Morocco one of the largest clients of Israeli military industries.
In the same context, and within the Abraham Accords framework, the United Arab Emirates normalized relations with the zionist entity across all levels, particularly in the security sphere, and normalization continued throughout the genocide. Circulating reports have linked the Emirati regime to the establishment, arming, and support of armed militias such as the “Yasser Abu Shabab” group, cooperating with occupation forces. These militias reportedly carried out actions serving the occupation, from blocking and looting aid and reselling it at inflated prices, to carrying out assassinations against civilians and resistance members, and operating against resistance factions in coordination with the occupation.
In Bahrain, in the aftermath of normalization under the same agreements, a Bahraini court sentenced activist Ibrahim Sharif to six months in prison on charges of “insulting Israel” and inciting public pressure on regimes to stop the war on Gaza. This sent an unmistakable message to any voice attempting to breach the wall of official normalization.
As for the Palestinian Authority, its “security coordination” with the occupation continued unabated, from arresting resistance members, dismantling cells in a systematic attempt to prevent any popular or armed response in the West Bank to support Gaza.
Before October 7, 2023, Arab regimes were racing, one after another, toward normalization with the zionist entity. The Abraham Accords stand as the clearest evidence of this trend. ‘Israel’s’ major strategic bet was on the Saudi regime. The military operation “Al-Aqsa Flood”, carried out by the resistance in Gaza, was a cry to halt the normalization process. The establishment of new normalization agreements, especially with the Saudi regime, has since been put on hold.
This, however, does not change the intertwined reality: the complicity of Arab regimes in the genocide and their ongoing economic, political, and military normalisation with the zionist entity. A decisive question emerges; is what we are witnessing mere coincidence? Incapacity? Betrayal? What drives Arab regimes to engage in such practices? Are these isolated actions, or a systematic pattern serving a specific function?
Empirical observation reveals that these practices are repeated and consistent, thus nullifying the hypothesis of coincidence. Understanding this conduct therefore cannot be confined to moral description; it requires deconstructing its structural roots. If the matter extends beyond incapacity or betrayal, then we are confronting a foundational function, not an unexpected deviation from it.
To be continued in Part II …
 | A guest post by
|