OPINION: Zionism cannot be defeated, but it can be harnessed
Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia fear an independent Palestinian state more than they fear Israel. Ertan Karpazli writes.
Genocide has been taking place in Gaza for a year now, and despite what has been happening to the Palestinians there since October 7, 2024 being arguably the most well-documented and live streamed massacre of a civilian population in human history, much of the world is still in blatant denial about severity of the problem.
Unlike such incidents in the past, where the civilian death toll has similarly been so high, the war crimes taking place in Gaza are being recorded and broadcast in real-time. No amount of suppression through the manipulation of algorithms on social media has been able to prevent brutal images of innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered and displaced on their homeland reaching our screens. Yet, while attempts to silence protests against the genocide persist, the powers that be either seek to cover up the crimes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, or justify them. Some supporters of the genocide aren’t even interested in maintaining any kind of moral or ethical high ground. They simply view the Israeli government’s actions as a necessary evil to achieve a greater objective, if not a good deed worthy of merit in the eyes of God, cleansing the world of the dastardly saracens once and for all.
But for the sound of heart and mind, what’s happening in Gaza, and now slowly extending to Lebanon, is an atrocity that must not only be condemned, but halted immediately. While a ceasefire should be implemented with immediate effect, procedures must be followed up thereafter to bring all those responsible for these crimes against humanity to justice.
Undoubtedly, there have been calls to end the fighting to allow for negotiations to prevail, but when it comes to physically intervening to bring about this cessation of hostilities, what we have found is that where there is will to do so, there is a lack of power to exercise that will, and where there is power, there is a lack of will. However, not all those who have expressed this will are necessarily powerless to act. So why don’t they?
Of course, whenever there is any kind of conflict in the Middle East, we look to the same four nations to provide solutions, even though they have a tendency to only create more problems. These nations are Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We look to these countries because they have the most skin in the game. Not only are they the closest regional influencers by proximity, but they are also the countries with the most to potentially gain geopolitically through military intervention. None of these countries can afford to remain silent as war rages on their doorstep. Any kind of conflict in the region carries the risk of spreading into their borders if it is not contained in a timely and orderly manner. Therefore, they tend not to be very welcoming to any kind of destabilising force in the region that isn’t directly working for them, which is why Israel has generally been a major headache for them since its conception in 1948.
Mutually binding fear
In the Middle East, there is the notion that should all of these countries merely spit on Israel at the same time, the so-called Jewish State would be drowned in their flood. Saying that, there are very specific reasons as to why these nations continue to hold their fire.
An outsider who has no idea about the dynamics of the Middle East might be forgiven for asking why these countries don't just simply team up and address the problem that is Israel. Collectively they certainly have the manpower, the weaponry, the wealth and the resources to get the job done. Turkey could enforce a naval blockade on Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean while Egypt moves to stop Israel-bound vessels from reaching its shores by blocking access to the Suez Canal. Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could besiege Israel from the north, while Saudi Arabia and, by extension, its ally Jordan do the same from the south and the east. To add, if Riyadh denied oil shipments to all nations supporting Israel economically, and Cairo likewise closed the Suez to any nation trading with the Israelis, it wouldn't take long for the international community to realise they have more to lose by allying themselves with the Israelis than if they were to turn their backs on them.
But that is all easier said than done. First of all, for any such military cooperation to take place, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia would first need to establish mutually binding treaties that oblige them all to participate in such an effort as equal partners. This in itself would require some hardcore intellectual gymnastics to ensure that all signatories are 100 percent satisfied with the wording of the deal. The absence of any solid diplomatic foundations that could serve as a basis whereby these discussions can even begin makes coming to this point a long and arduous mission. Even if these four countries were able to overcome the inevitable attempts to derail or hijack the processes involved in coming to such an agreement, by the time they were ready to take collective action to save the Palestinians, there would likely be no Palestinians left to save.
Assuming, however, that by some miracle they were able to pull it off and permanently erase Israel from the world map, what would become of their allegiance afterwards? Would they all really just hand the land back to the Palestinian people, turn around and go back home? Would such a thing be conceivable after each of them sacrificed countless men and resources to achieve this common objective? How would the Iranian government explain to Fatima, a widowed mother-of-four from Shiraz, that her husband died rescuing another woman’s husband from an Israeli prison? Would Ahmet, a retired Turkish history teacher from the Black Sea city of Samsun, understand why his only son was killed while saving the life of another young man from Khan Younis? What about Gamal, a young Egyptian conscript brought up in the slums of Cairo? Would he be expected to just return to his life of unemployment and poverty after losing his leg to turn around the fortunes of another young man from Nablus?
Should such a four-way coalition ever become a reality, Ankara, Cairo, Tehran and Riyadh would likely find that getting rid of the State of Israel is the easy part of their operation. Deciding what replaces it would prove more difficult. It wouldn't be as simple as leaving the Palestinians to get on with it. They would need to ensure that the power structure that is put in place accommodates all of their conflicting interests in what is probably the most strategically important territory in the world. The newly established Palestinian government would have the impossible task of keeping up this delicate balancing act while at the same time being accountable to a people who are impatient for the first taste of their long-denied freedom.
Imagine the dismay and discontent that would arise when the Palestinians, having rid themselves of Israel, quickly realise that they are at the mercy of another occupation immediately afterwards, except now, instead of dealing with one occupier, they're dealing with four. Also imagine what will happen when this new Palestinian government, written off to fail from the moment of its establishment, inevitably collapses, leaving the four powers in charge with no choice but to scramble and consolidate whatever leverage they can from the mess they’ve created. The ingredients would already be in place for a civil war that would be far more deadly and far more difficult to resolve than anything the Palestinians have suffered living under Israeli occupation.
Bringing Iran in from the cold
Each of these countries have of course factored all of this in when making their risk assessments of the situation. That is why all of them, bar Iran, have ONLY called for a ceasefire and, at most, the prosecution of Israeli officials involved in committing the genocide - not the destruction of the State of Israel itself. Iran is the exception because it is ideologically driven by a strand of Shiite fanaticism. This fanaticism is not helped by the fact that international sanctions on Iran have given the country very little to fear losing, thus making them more of a challenge to bargain with.
Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, do have something to lose - at least much more than they have to gain by risking direct conflict with one another. For that reason, they will also be reluctant to take any unilateral steps to militarily intervene on behalf of the Palestinians, as they know that any unilateral action would only force their counterparts into taking uncoordinated unilateral action of their own, leading to full scale war.
On that note - unlike Turkey, Egypt and Iran - Saudi Arabia actually has very little to gain by unilaterally getting involved in the conflict. While Turkey would benefit from turning Gaza into a military outpost and Egypt would love to exploit Gaza’s economic potential, Saudi Arabia has no real reason to enter the conflict except to prevent Gaza from falling into the hands of its three counterparts, especially Iran.
Iran, on the other hand, absolutely needs to add Palestine to its corridor of influence to the Mediterranean in order to unlock the former glory of what was the long-lost Persian Empire. Without any real chance of maintaining its survival under the current circumstances, where Tehran is not being given the opportunity to pursue its interests peacefully, setting up a network of loyalist proxies across the region is its only choice.
The only thing that would steer Iran away from this objective is to offer it an incentive to pull back and focus more on economic growth at home. How that would take shape is anyone’s guess. Would that mean waiting for a revolution to take place in Iran to oust its theocratic Shiite regime and replace it with one that is more open to forming diplomatic relations, or would it mean diplomatically engaging with the current regime and persuading them to take another course to greatness? Or, would that mean stirring a civil conflict in Iran to tear it apart? One can only assume what Saudi Arabia’s preferred option is.
Even then, after a full year of making empty threats and upping the anti-Israeli rhetoric, Iran has shown that it doesn't really have the appetite to enter a direct war with Israel, even when Israel carries out direct hits on its territory and allies. In the course of this conflict, Tehran has only provided limited and measured responses if only to save face, not to cause actual and lasting damage to Israeli infrastructure. Iran understands that Israel is trying to provoke a response in order to create the illusion of its own imminent destruction at the hands of a fanatical Iranian regime, and by doing so prompt the US into putting boots on the ground in the Middle East.
Washington’s watchful eye
Although Israel is probably more than capable of fighting Iran itself with its technological superiority, it would not be able to defend itself in the event that Iran successfully rallies the entire Muslim world in its support. By drawing the US into the conflict, however, the Israeli government seeks the cover it needs to carry on acting with impunity. But as much as the US offers unconditional support and protection for Israel in the international arena, supplying the Jewish State with unlimited weapons, supplies and funding, there's no hiding the fact that Washington would much rather avoid entering the war, leaving that option as the ultimate last resort.
Both Washington and Tehran know that should they engage in direct combat, it wouldn't be any ordinary war. They know that the outcome of such a conflict would likely lead to a perpetual clash of civilisations that would turn out to be more costly than it's worth for both sides. Israel's mistake, perhaps, is believing that American loyalty to Zionism has no ceiling. There is very little thought spared for the ordinary American who has grown tired of sending their boys to die on far away, foreign soil to fight for a country that leeches off the US taxpayer and offers very little benefit in return. In the current climate, the ordinary American would much rather do away with the pro-Israeli capitalists who have been running their country through corruption, bribery and blackmail, as well as subverting US foreign policy to create expensive wars aimed only at filling private pockets.
Sensing this, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia don't feel there is any need for them to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians. They realise that sooner or later, Israel will run itself aground and that its allies will eventually come to the conclusion that its upkeep is more trouble than it's worth. By not reacting to the Israeli provocations and giving Israel free rein to commit one atrocity after another, these countries are in effect allowing Israel to destroy its own reputation and lower itself to the status of a pariah state, making it almost impossible for any nation to defend it on any level without sabotaging their own reputation as well.
Ankara, Cairo, Tehran and Riyadh all know that the time will eventually come to intervene, but that time is not now. When Israel suddenly finds itself alone without a friend in the world to come to its aid, that's when it will be ready for the picking. At that point, it will be an easy victory for whoever dares to deploy their army. Until then, however, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be focused on building up their strength so that when the time is right, they are the ones who are ready to seize the opportunity ahead of their rivals. In the meantime, Israel will continue to commit genocide on the Palestinian population, but this will ultimately work in the favour of whoever steps in to become the 'saviour' of the Palestinian people.
A ‘free’ Palestine
As suggested earlier, the existence of an affluent, empowered and nationalistic Palestinian population would present a problem for anyone who steps in to fill the power vacuum Israel leaves behind. Neither Turkey, Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia wants to deal with a Palestinian population that is able to express a national will contrary to the interests of the state that would put everything on the line to free them from Israeli occupation. Of course, that state cannot allow the Palestinian population to be completely eradicated as they would need some Palestinians to remain to justify a narrative that supports a long-term military presence there. But what they would need is the ‘right type’ of Palestinian to remain.
By ‘right type’ of Palestinian, I mean one who will remain forever loyal to their ‘saviour’. One who will accept whatever fairytale their ‘saviour’ tells them and doesn’t stop to question the parts that do not make sense, or appear to be contradictory. The ‘saviour’ would need a Palestinian population it can mould into its own image and easily engineer so that the Palestinian national will is in tune with its own, without any room for divergence. It would need a Palestinian economy that is weak and highly dependent on financial aid from the ‘saviour’, with very little scope for independent production. The aid the Palestinian people receive would be just enough to allow them to spend it on goods and services imported from the ‘saviour’ nation.
The ‘right type’ of Palestinian would also need to be one who has very little knowledge or care for their unique history and cultural identity, or any sense that it needs to be preserved for future generations. They would also need to be open to new settlers from the ‘saviour’ nation to fill gaps in the market left by other, ‘undesirable’ Palestinians who the ‘saviour’ would need to keep from returning. The ‘saviour’ would need to ensure that the Palestinian economy offers very little incentive for externally displaced Palestinians to return in order to free up space and resources reserved for settlers from the ‘saviour’ nation.
This would be the dream for Turkey, Egypt and Iran, depending on which one gets there first, as it would allow them to take advantage of Palestine economically while consolidating their control over the territory. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, hasn't much need to send settlers to Palestine for economic reasons, and might find it difficult to convince its citizens, who are quite comfortable at home, to settle there. However, Riyadh would definitely be interested in doing whatever it can to keep the Iranians out, and may instead insert a religious class of Salafist scholars to inject Palestinian society with a dosage of extreme, anti-Shiite sentiment.
But real life is a lot more complicated than that. The stakes in the region are too high to allow a single regional power to take charge of Palestine should the Israeli occupation ever collapse. Regardless of their states of readiness, none of these four countries would sit back idly and watch one of them turn Palestine into their own backyard playground. Likewise, none of them would dare step into the void alone if they knew it would draw in the others. Unless one of them was in a position to become the 'saviour' of Palestine without running the risk of being outmuscled by one of their rivals, none of them would even entertain the idea of going it alone.
So then what happens to Palestine and the Palestinian people once the Israeli occupation implodes? If another regional power is not willing to step in to fill the power vacuum left in Israel’s wake, and the Palestinian people are so depleted that they cannot project enough power to successfully run their own state independently, what will come into being in Israel's stead? It is inconceivable that what has historically been considered to be the world’s most strategically significant territory will be left to become a desolate wasteland, especially with major imperialist powers lurking around in the shadows.
Time to reform Zionism
We certainly shouldn’t expect the US to just pull out of the race the moment it realises its horse is tiring. The US is deeply invested in maintaining its hegemony in the region, so if its vehicle starts failing, it would not hesitate to send it in for repairs, or if it is broken beyond repair, replace the vehicle completely. However, Washington is unlikely to back one of the regional powers to take over, as the way the US maintains its hegemony is by compartmentalising its allies and acting as an interlocker. If the US cannot have Israel, it would need to create a new ally that is almost exactly like Israel in every way, except with one difference…
The US needs to accept that if it wants to maintain a presence in the Middle East long-term, it must work with an ally whose interests align with those of the local population. Washington cannot carry on offering unconditional support to an ally that commits acts of genocide and war crimes. The US needs to be seen as a liberator and facilitator of economic growth and freedom, not a tyrannical empire only interested in bloodshed and oppression.
For that reason, the US needs to play a role in reforming Zionism. It needs to work to remove elements within the Zionist movement that celebrate White European supremacy and apartheid. Although many would argue that these attitudes are at the heart of Israel's national identity, and by taking them away Israel would no longer be recognisable as a state, the truth is that if Israeli Jews wish to remain in what they consider to be their promised 'Holy Land' in the long-term, they need to learn to live with non-Jewish populations in peace. It is the responsibility of the US, which has given Israel the licence to behave with impunity since 1948, to guide Israel through its transformation from a hostile entity to one that upholds international law.
Saudi Arabia would no doubt welcome this outcome, as it would relieve them of any duty to get involved to keep Iran at bay. It would also be desirable for Turkey, which would also be relieved of any domestic pressure to cut ties with Israel. A more moderate Israel would present Ankara a partner in the region it can work with, which wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed if a free Palestine ever fell under the influence of Tehran, Riyadh or Cario. Egypt, meanwhile, would simply be happy to not get dragged into a complicated war on its borders, allowing it to focus more on feeding its population of 100 million people.
In the absence of a conflict, Iran would also lack any relevance to the region. Unlike in Lebanon and Syria, where a considerable number of people belong to the Shiite sect, Shiism is not native to Palestine. Had the Iranians been ethnic Arabs, they might have still had a say in Palestinian affairs, but the fact that they are a completely different race altogether means that Iran is dependent on the conflict between Jews and Muslims to continue if it wants to play any kind of role in the region. Once Iran realises that all avenues to reviving the Persian Empire in this way are closed, the Iranian regime might even consider revising its strategy and start looking more inwardly, thus coming into line along with Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Working out a deal
With American oversight, there’s no reason why these nations cannot live with Israel in the region, provided they all honour diplomatic chivalry and maintain a certain degree of decorum, Israel included. Of course, there is the question of what happens to the Palestinians, even after Israel has been reined in. As part of Israel’s transition into a nation state that acts as a modern nation state should act, the Israeli government would have to give concessions and offer satisfactory compensation packages.
Any Palestinian who has been denied the right to his or her land and property should either be allowed to return, or offered something to the same value as that which has been lost. Where land cannot be returned due to the risk of it causing further bloodshed, suitable land swaps should be agreed. This can be done under a two-state solution, or a one-state solution in which all citizens are given equal rights. Jews and Arabs might even want to consider forming a new state, under a new name and a new flag, where they are both given the status of joint founders and custodians. Whatever they decide, whether that is to live together or separately, all those found guilty of war crimes and acts of genocide in the past must be prosecuted in the severest manner so that both nations can move on.
Perhaps, with time, the Jewish population can become a pleasant buffer between Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Jews could unite these nations through trade and business, help them set their differences aside, and encourage them to focus on mutually beneficial growth. After all, the US is a distant empire, and like all empires that have been confined to history, its power will eventually fade. If Israeli Jews intend on surviving in the ‘Holy Land’ after their most generous well dries up, they will stand a better chance of doing so by getting along with their Muslim neighbours than constantly searching for a sponsor from lands far away. They can be as prosperous and thriving as they were when they were in Thessaloniki under the Ottomans, or as successful as they were in Cordoba in Islamic Spain.
For that to happen, Jews need to eliminate the unnatural elements within themselves that have made them view Muslims as their enemies, and Muslims need to start seeing Zionism as something that doesn’t necessarily need to be defeated, but harnessed.
Ertan Karpazli is the founder of Radio EastMed. He has previously been published by TRT World, Politics Today, Middle East Monitor, Daily Sabah, World Bulletin, The Daily Mirror, The Fletcher Forum, The Platform, T-Vine and many more online and print publications.
Tweets @Ertan_Karpazli
All views expressed by the writer are solely his own.