The beast’s bargain: Arab states, Israel, and the
price of ‘peace’
When peace is demanded from the weak and defined by
the strong, it ceases to be peace at all – it becomes submission disguised as
justice.
Radwan Mortada
NOV 5, 2025
https://thecradle.co/articles/the-beasts-bargain-arab-states-israel-and-the-price-of-peace
In the aftermath of the Israeli war on Lebanon, a
whisper began circulating in political corridors: the possibility that Lebanon might join the Abraham Accords.
This surfaced even before US envoy Tom Barrack floated direct negotiations with
Israel – a proposition Beirut rejected in favor of the established “mechanism” of indirect talks mediated by Washington.
Today, the evidence shows that Washington is not
pushing for immediate normalization with Tel Aviv, but rather for direct
negotiations over an “American paper” as a first step on the so‑called “peace”
road. The paradox is stark; these calls for peace ignore the reality on the ground with continued acts of aggression.
Israel has yet to honor a ceasefire, while voices in Lebanon are calling for peace with a
party that remains at war. That contradiction traps advocates of “diplomatic
solutions” in a genuine dilemma.
Indeed, Lebanon’s army commander, Rudolphe Haikal,
found himself forced to order fire on Israeli drones violating Lebanese
airspace, before the president instructed him to respond to any ground incursion following
the incident in which Israeli troops stormed the southern village of Blida,
and killed a civilian municipality employee in his
sleep.
When ‘peace’ equals ‘surrender’
Two years on from the launch of Operation Al‑Aqsa
Flood in October 2023, after Israel's atrocious massacres and genocidal war on
Gaza that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, and the war on Lebanon that
also killed thousands of Lebanese, the question of peace resurfaces in Arab
discourse. Amid renewed calls for peace with Israel from Arab states and media,
one truth is unavoidable: peace from a position of weakness does not end
domination; rather, it often enshrines it.
Peace under those terms does not reverse the equation
of power unless the strong acknowledges a partner of equal standing. That is
not Israel’s agenda. Tel Aviv does not seek equal peace; it seeks domination and expansion.
The late, martyred Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani
captured this succinctly when asked why he rejected dialogue with Israel. His
response:
“What is the point of dialogue between the sword and
the neck?”
What kind of dialogue exists when the strong alone
hold the decision‑making power while the weak simply ask?
The more accurate question is: is Israel even seeking
a just settlement that ends occupation and establishes sustainable peace – or
is it instead forging security–economic arrangements that cement its
superiority and require Arab and Palestinian submission in return for what is
misleadingly called “peace”?
On 21 January 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu declared, “I will not compromise on full Israeli security
control over all the territory west of the Jordan [River],” which directly
contradicts the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state.
This political posture coincides with unprecedented
settlement acceleration. Reports by European and UN agencies show that
2023–2024 recorded record levels of settlement and land seizure in the
occupied West Bank, erasing even the possibility of the two‑state
solution.
In the Arab world today – especially in Lebanon –
media lines now say: “We want peace”; “It’s not a crime to ask for peace”;
“Breaking the taboos is a duty.”
Lebanese broadcaster Marcel Ghanem declared in his
program opener: “Break the taboos … we cannot endure more procrastination …
Yes, we demand peace. It’s not a crime to demand peace.” Makram
Rabah, managing editor at Now Lebanon and an Assistant
Professor at the American University of Beirut (AUB), opined that “There is no shame in peace when peace is
made by a sovereign people. The only shame is to keep dying for the wars of
others.”
The desire for peace is not in itself misguided. But
what if the other party views peace only as a tool to deepen its dominance,
further subjugate the region’s people, and seize their wealth and land? When
‘peace agreements’ are signed by a weak actor conceding massively while the
strong retains its colonial structure, then peace becomes absolute surrender. That dynamic reinforces the notion that Israel loses
far more in peace than in war – hence “peace,” properly defined, is a threat to
Israel.
The Qatar model of mediator-enabled domination
Far from the frontlines, the state of Qatar invested
in its role as an international broker with ties to Washington and indirectly
to Israel. The UN in March 2022 designated Qatar as a “Major Non‑NATO Ally” (MNNA).
On paper, such a status grants Doha special defense
and security privileges. Qatar sponsored talks, funded aid to Gaza, invested in Israeli business ventures, and maintained
strong relations with the US, which uses Al‑Udeid Air Base as a major forward hub.
The irony: despite this strategic positioning, Qatar
still found itself targeted by Israel. On 9 September 2025, Israel carried out a strike in Doha targeting members of a Hamas negotiation
delegation inside Qatar. That raises a foundational question: as long as Israel
attacks even a mediator with no record of fighting it, can its aggressive
nature ever change?
Qatar’s experience shows: for “peace” to have meaning,
it cannot simply be the weaker party’s initiative – it must be sought and
accepted by the strong. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
Consider the example of the Palestinian Authority (PA)
led by Mahmoud Abbas. Over decades, it has become a security partner to Israel
– coordinating in the occupied West
Bank, detaining
resistance cadres, handing over lists, and cooperating under the label of
“security coordination.”
Yet Israel accuses it of “funding terrorism” because
of prisoner stipends. Even full collaboration, it seems, does not guarantee
peace; submission remains the default.
In contrast, the model of the UAE shows a different
dynamic: normalization with Israel based on economy and investment, not justice or the end of hegemony. When the weaker
becomes an economic partner, “peace” turns into a lucrative commodity for the strong – peace defined as “a service to
the strong in return for temporary stability.”
In Sudan, the third Arab state to join the Abraham Accords,
Israel never saw Khartoum as a strategic partner; it was a security outpost to
monitor the Red Sea and trafficking routes. Normalization came “from above,”
not from equal partners.
This shows that Israel is not opposed to peace – but
it is opposed to ‘equal’ peace, or peace that transforms power relations.
Historic peace treaties, but no justice
Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in March 1979,
which mandated Israel’s full withdrawal from the Sinai within three years, and
created security arrangements and demilitarized zones. Despite formal
normalization since 1980, the relationship is widely described as a “cold peace.” The maxim remains: Arab state signatures do not
equate to popular normalization.
On the ground, rare but illuminating security
incidents illustrate the fragility, such as June 2023 and May 2024 near Rafah. Meanwhile, energy cooperation
deepened: Egypt, Israel, and the EU signed an agreement on 15 June 2022 to
expand Egyptian gas exports via liquefaction plants.
The reality is a dual image of security–energy
partnership coupled with popular resistance. That balance illustrates how
“peace” as currently structured serves Tel Aviv’s security and energy needs –
not Palestinian justice.
Jordan offers another case. Its 26 October 1994 treaty
set water and border frameworks. But 30 years on, peace remains elusive. In November 2023, Amman
recalled its ambassador over the Gaza war; it froze the signing of a
“Water-for-Energy” project.
Yet practical cooperation continues: water, gas,
security channels remain open. Jordan even opened its airspace to the Israeli
Air Force to intercept Iranian drone/missile threats –showing Israel
offers token arrangements to capitals that serve its interests, without
political resolution of the Palestinian issue.
In Syria, the new Al-Qaeda-rooted government offered
“goodwill” gestures, returning the remains of Israeli spy Eli Cohen, declaring hostility to Iran, and intercepting
weapons bound for Hezbollah’s fight with Israel.
Yet Israel never engaged in real peace talks. Instead,
it occupied more territory, struck Damascus airport, seized Mount Hermon, water resources, and declared it would never leave. Israel does
not want strong states – it wants them weak enough to act as border police for
its own security, not to defend their land.
In Lebanon, the daily killings, massacres, and occupation will not be forgotten
easily. How can Lebanon be asked to sign a peace that ignores justice? Israel
killed thousands of Lebanese and continues bombing villages and assassinating
people daily.
How can peace be demanded on soil where war crimes
remain unaddressed and the blood still flows? How can arms be surrendered to an
enemy that has never shown goodwill?
Though Lebanon’s prime minister, president, and most
ministers share a stance against non-state weapons, they also confirm that Israel never honored what
Lebanon did. How then can negotiations be discussed while the enemy has not
even respected the ceasefire that Lebanon upheld?
And what of the voices now advocating peace as if it
is a possible salvation, coming only after the Lebanese state wins full
sovereignty and monopolizes arms? These voices ignore that the presidency and
government in Lebanon, despite internal dispute, agree: Israel is not after
peace but limitless gains.
Syria was ravaged, sans firing a single bullet at Israel – and yet Israeli assaults persist.
What is the difference then between Lebanon and Syria? The issue is not about
the resistance movement, Hezbollah, but Israel’s continual appetite for
expansion and control.
These ambitions were revealed in the maritime border deal, where Tel Aviv aimed to maximize gains, then
cancelled it after the assassination of Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. Territorial greed surfaced again when Netanyahu held
up a “new Middle East” map at the UN that omitted Lebanon and Syria.
That map belonged to the “Greater Israel” fantasy – not political reality. Echoing this, Tom
Barrack in Damascus claimed Lebanon and Syria are “one country, not two” in
eerie synchrony with Israeli discourse that erases borders and redraws the
region to its liking.
Those demanding peace today arrived decades late, over
30 years after the 1991 Madrid Conference, which Israel rejected.
What does Israel mean by “peace”?
Combine the preceding elements – perpetual security
control west of the Jordan, accelerated settlements, pushing Arab capitals into
bilateral cooperation detached from final resolution or the Palestinian
question – and you arrive at the definition of “peace” as Israel sees it. A
system of deterrence and subjugation that neutralizes states while perpetuating
control over Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s own statements rejecting a Palestinian state after the war and his
government’s West Bank policies confirm this conclusion politically and practically.
Peace demanded from a position of weakness is not
sufficient. Real peace begins when the strong is compelled to treat the other
side as an equal – not a subordinate. Israel sees itself as the “master,” and
the rest as its created subordinates.
This is the core of its thinking – driven by the myth
of a Greater Israel. Weak states cannot rely merely on claiming peace; they
must create power equations that enforce respect and force recognition of their
rights.
The risk here is that Arab appeals for peace become a
pact of submission – branded “peace,” yet in reality a continuation of
hegemony.
The first step toward genuine peace is not a signature
or press release – but this simple question:
Does this “peace” change reality – or does it legitimize ongoing submission? Is
the strong side willing to surrender occupation and aggression?
It is not enough for us only to say “we don’t want
peace.” If the other side wants only domination in the name of peace, then our
calling for peace is from one side a mere wish, from another side a reward for
genocide.
Demonizing the resistance
For years, a massive Arab and western media machine has generated methodical propaganda to reframe
the moral map in Arab consciousness. Iran, Hezbollah, and anyone who resists
the US-Israeli project are presented as the root of regional collapse – while
invaders and their allied regimes are portrayed as champions of peace and
stability.
Every day, the memory of the people is cleansed
through one-sided discourse about the “Iran threat,” the “Hezbollah expansion,”
the “Shia crescent” – while the crimes committed under the banners of “freedom”
and “democracy” by western alliances or Arab proxies are hidden.
The truth remains, it was not the resistance that
destroyed Lebanon, it was those who surrendered. Those who colluded with the
siege, facilitated the invasion, and funded the media-political-military
degradation that swept the region in the name of modernity and enlightenment.
For two decades, Arab and western media have
constructed a distorted narrative that made Iran and Hezbollah public enemy
number one – and muffled the real causes of our tragedies.
When Afghanistan was devastated under US occupation, no one asked
how many were killed or how many millions suffered under the “war on terror.”
When Iraq was illegally invaded in 2003, hundreds of
thousands died, infrastructure collapsed, and chaos reigned – all branded “a
march to democracy.”
Lebanon is repeatedly targeted by Israeli aggression,
and forbidden from building a genuine independent state – because its
independence threatened Israel’s “superiority.” Yet media campaigns portrayed
the resistance as the source of crises, ignoring those who imposed siege,
funded division, and shot the economy.
In Syria, the destruction was not caused by “Iranian
influence” as popularized, but by an international project that mobilized
thousands of fighters from ISIS, the Nusra Front, and other groups with Persian
Gulf funding and western complicity. Iran was one of the few powers that helped
prevent Damascus’s collapse. The government eventually fell under crushing
economic siege, not from Iranian projection.
As for Yemen, the war was not a proxy conflict, as simplified by
the media, but direct aggression by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, backed by
Washington, turning the country into one enduring some of the worst
humanitarian catastrophes in the 21st century.
In Palestine, people have been slaughtered and killed
by bombs and siege for decades, yet their resistance movements are demonized
more than the perpetrators. The mainstream media denies the occupied people's
right to self–defense, demonizing their rockets while ignoring the occupation's
fighter jets that annihilate families and destroy cities.
In Sudan, systematic ethnic cleansing is unfolding – led by
the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Darfur, accused of mass killings, forced displacement, and genocide. Militias
regionally backed by the UAE and Israel are implicated. The mainstream treats
the conflict as a marginal crisis.
The propaganda effort has flipped the narrative on its
head – those who invade and occupy are cast as peacemakers, while those who
resist them are branded as threats. If Arab appeals for “peace” continue on
these terms, they will read not as a quest for justice, but as a quiet signal
of submission.
