Hala Muhammad Jaber Al -Ansari
What draws attention when talking about the repercussions of the twelve days that stormed the region, and came as a paragraph drawn within a large scheme being implemented to redistribute the centers of gravity to their lands and trim the nails of their risks, is preaching the birth of the Middle East with a new version. A copy that we do not know its next form is exactly, and if we have taught its geographical borders and its geopolitical and social interventions and interventions that are more complicated between the competitors on the one -ruler’s chair of this East.
The term “New Middle East”, and since it has emerged on sand tables concerned with its demarcation, refers to a geopolitical entity that reshapes the association of some Arab countries with their strategic depth and classic geographical map as one Arab nation. It joins, according to the most traded perception, countries like Iran, Turkey and Israel, and its borders extend to Oman in the east and Egypt in the west. One of the common justifications for this geographical classification is the distinction between the countries of the Mediterranean and the Far East countries!
As tensions escalate the lands of this bloc, we ask to understand the “uncommon” justifications and the real purpose of “renewing it.” Do we assume that the “new” Middle East version will succeed in imposing a more optimistic reality, as its main players interact within a network of relationships that control the language of reason and practice political realism that develops the balance of common interests, and adopts the path of diplomatic understandings? Or will we collide every time with crises similar to the “big explosion”, which occurred last June and we return to the catastrophic zero hour, where everyone is busy with “managing conflicts” and hanging them, instead of working to end it?
We must try to understand the Middle East “new”, to return history back. The first to preach the idea and approach was not the Condaleza Rice, as it was rumored since the start of the September 9, 2001 spark (2001), but rather, Shimon Perez, the former Israeli Prime Minister and one of the Arabs of the Oslo Agreement (1993), as evidenced in his book issued after the conclusion of the agreement, which carried the same title.
Perez’s book is today one of the relevant historical references to understand the Western intention of the “New” Middle East, in which Israel is the main player in ensuring the security and stability of the region. According to the “Perizic” vision, the leadership center requires a complete conversion to an “war -based” economy, by adopting a new approach that establishes a “peace -based” economy to achieve the transformation of the balance of power of the Israeli good.
This will not take place – and the opinion of the author of the book – except through reconciliation agreements that take into account that the greatest threat to Israel is not the issue of the conflict with the Palestinian side, but rather the increasing fundamentalist threats issued by both sides, the growing Iranian nuclear capabilities and the most dangerous enemy. This is not his dreamy perceptions for a new Middle East governed by economic alliances, without natural barriers between his countries! Ignorant, as usual, the historical rights of the Palestinian people within a vision unable to establish a base for “equal” interests to become “fair” peace, in the first place, no exception.
And I believe that the intellectual imbalance of this renewed project in its presentation is still in place, in terms of its lack of elements of mutual trust and clarity in the intentions, and the continuation of some of its parties in adopting expansion projects that strike by the wall all international laws and norms that demand respect for the borders of the neighborhood between states and stop the hand of chaotic interventions in their affairs. This is in addition to the unjustified risks to imposing a fait accompli policy by house force, which makes the possibility of a new version of this bloc or the geopolitical alliance is very difficult, especially in terms of rebuilding trust relations between its states and rejecting all forms of hatred and hostility and drying what it leads, so that the simplest requirements of coexistence and the civilized understanding in a geographical environment are then available.
In summary, talking about the establishment of a new Middle East appears today as a kind of intellectual luxury and Byzantine theorizing from reality, so that the term remains merely a vague and immortal concept fueled by political complications, unilateral interests and endless conflicts among its most prominent players.
