Arab states are not betraying Palestine, because Palestinian freedom, defeat of Zionism and dismantling imperial domination were never central to their agenda, writes Ramzy Baroud.
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump receive a red carpet welcome by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia and his official delegation, Saturday, May 20, 2017, on their arrival to King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House /Shealah Craighead / Flickr / Public Domain)
I have always found it interesting, and at times revealing, when seasoned activists and intellectuals in the West, including those who see themselves as deeply committed to Palestine, raise the same familiar point: Arab governments must stand up to Israel and the United States in solidarity with their brethren in Palestine.
The argument often comes wrapped in a perplexed question: why are Arabs and Muslims not doing anything for Palestine?
What makes this particularly puzzling is that the question is often posed by respected analysts and historians — people who should recognize that the issue is far less sentimental than structural.
At first glance, the question may not seem bizarre. Palestinians are tied to their neighbors through history, geography, demography, religion, language, collective memory and a shared experience of Western domination and Israeli colonial violence.
Additionally, Israeli leaders speak openly in expansionist terms, and they act accordingly, whether in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, or elsewhere. The people on the receiving end of this violence are often the same native communities of the region: Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike.
Indeed, Arab and Muslim institutions themselves constantly invoke Palestine as a central cause. Arab summits still describe Palestine as a core issue, and public opinion across the region remains overwhelmingly aligned on that point.
For example, the 2024-25 Arab Opinion Index found that 80 percent of respondents across 15 Arab countries agreed that “the Palestinian cause is a collective Arab cause,” not solely Palestinian. The same survey found that 44 percent viewed Israel as the greatest threat to Arab security and 21 percent named the United States, far ahead of Iran at 6 percent.
So yes, the question of Arab and Muslim solidarity does not emerge from nowhere. On the level of popular feeling, it is entirely rational. It reflects a moral and political intuition that Palestine should be a point of unity.
But here is what that argument misses. Sentimental expectations aside, many Arab governments are not neutral actors waiting to be persuaded into solidarity. They are already positioned, structurally and strategically, within the U.S.-led regional order.
Some are client regimes in the classical sense. Others are so dependent on American protection, validation, or military partnership that calling them “partners” barely conceals the hierarchy embedded in the relationship.
The problem, then, is not hesitation. It is alignment.
The Gaza genocide offered a devastating example of this reality. While Palestinians were being starved and bombed, official Arab responses remained fragmented, cautious and largely subordinate to Washington’s strategic priorities.
Some governments hardened their rhetoric later, but the early reactions were deeply revealing. Bahrain, for example, publicly condemned Palestinian resistance for Oct. 7, rather than, at least, taking a position even remotely proportionate to the scale of Israeli violence and genocide.
Egypt, meanwhile, allowed the narrative to circulate that it had warned Israel beforehand of “something big,” a framing that shifted attention toward Palestinian action rather than Israeli impunity.
President Donald Trump meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the Tonino Lamborghini International Convention Center in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, October 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
Even more revealing was the economic dimension. As Ansarallah’s Red Sea operations disrupted maritime access to Israel in declared solidarity with Gaza, a land corridor developed to move cargo by truck from ports in the Gulf all the way to Jordan and finally to Israel.
Whatever diplomatic language Arab governments employed in public, trade and logistics were being quietly adapted in ways that helped Israel absorb the pressure and maintain continuity.
This was not an anomaly. It was continuity.
For decades, major Arab regimes have been deeply implicated in sustaining American military power in the region. U.S. installations in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and elsewhere have long served as the infrastructure through which Washington projects force across the Middle East. These bases are now the lifelines for the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
This is why the constant demand that Arab regimes “develop” a stronger position on Palestine is ultimately misleading. Their position has already been developed.
In many cases, it has taken the form of normalization, security coordination, military hosting, logistical facilitation, and political adaptation to U..S priorities. The action has already been taken. It is simply not taken in favor of Palestine.
And yet, despite this reality, the question continues to resurface. Why does it persist?
Part of the answer lies in the enduring belief that Arab and Muslim solidarity with Palestine is both historically logical and politically defensible.
Another lies in the fact that Israel’s ambitions do not stop at Palestine. Israeli leaders and institutions repeatedly articulate visions that implicate the entire region, whether through permanent military superiority, fragmentation of neighboring states, or the normalization of endless war.
These realities make the question emotionally and strategically compelling — even if it is ultimately misplaced when directed at regimes rather than peoples.
There is also a deeper reason: the historic failure of the West.
Western governments are structurally biased toward Israel, and many intellectuals, activists, and ordinary people have concluded — reasonably enough — that if justice will not come from Washington, London, Berlin, or Paris, then surely it must come from the Arab and Muslim worlds.
The instinct is understandable. But it confuses publics with regimes.
That misplaced expectation makes the current war on Iran all the more consequential.
The war on Iran may indeed become a wake-up call. As the joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Tehran is faltering, new realizations may be emerging in Arab capitals that neither Washington nor Israel can ultimately guarantee regime survival or regional stability.
At the level of ordinary people, the war has also generated a familiar sense of pride in resistance, not unlike what many felt during the steadfastness of Gaza and Lebanon. That may yet produce new conversations, perhaps even a new collective political imagination.
Until then, we would do better to understand Arab regimes according to their actual priorities, not our expectations. They are not “betraying” Palestine in the emotional sense, because Palestinian freedom, the defeat of Zionism, and the dismantling of imperial domination were never central to their governing agenda in the first place.
To the contrary, their overriding priority is the preservation of the regional status quo, whatever the human cost. And if maintaining that order requires the slow destruction of Palestine, many of them have already demonstrated that they are willing to pay that price.
Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a widely published and translated author, an internationally syndicated columnist and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015), and was a non-resident scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB. Visit his website.
This article is from Z Network, is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
A superbly revealing piece of writing, kudos to the analyst. Most laudable is his consistent differentiation throughout between the Arab regimes and Arab societies in general and his implicit pegging of Arab indifference and even hostility to Palestinian woes on the shameful impotence of ARAB REGIMES ! I remember a friend of mine commenting during the 1970s on why the multi-fronted Arab attack on Israel failed ; he said the Arabs were overly engrossed eyeing Israeli pussies ! I couldn’t understand how this was possible then, now with this vital differentiation elucidated, comprehension naturally falls in place. By the way, Baroud’s conclusion is most disturbing !
Are there any psychological paralells , dissonace, etc., that can be taken
from the song “Silence is Golden” ?
The relationship or decsions ?
What remains unspoken is all these client states are ruled by Sunnis WHEREAS all resistance states/groups are Shias.
The head-chopping Saudi dictatorship and the rest of the GCC family dictatorships are autocratic regimes and may well be toppled by their domestic populations. As Mr. Baroud implies, these regimes are vassals and client states of the US empire and despite empty rhetoric, fully support the Genocide of Palestine, and the war on the Resistance. They are seen as corrupt, amoral, hypocrites who hoard all of the obscene wealth for themselves. Turkiye, Jordan, and Egypt also cooperate with Israel and their genocides against Palestine, Lebanon etc.
Iran and the Resistance look like they are going to settle some long-standing grievances and if any justice comes out of the tragedy, we will see the demise of the dictatorships in Jordan, Kuwait, KSA, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar as well as the expulsion of the US from bases all over the region. Turkiye will likely remain a loyal NATO vassal, however.
Thank you for this fine article & its clarity. Continuity is an interesting word.
Iran & the way its people are standing up for their civilization’s principles contrasts sharply with the abandoning of founding principles by America with its hollow oaths.
The so-called greatest country in the history of humankind (CEO & founding member of the deadly Nuke Club) is neither so very human nor kind on top of its self-polishing turdness.
Iran is humbling the Rough Beast. But there’s sure to be more madness to come before Jerusalem.
Bring the troops & the dollar home. Help out around here for a change.
Excellent comment.
“Silence” is being generous. Most of the Arab “states” are Zionist, anti-Palestinians, and pro-Genocide. They make deals for money with the Empire and with the Zionist occupation government. They may do this quietly, to keep opposition quiet at home. But they have been very consistent in this for the last three or more years. There are several “Arab States” on the US-Israel Board of Genocide, and “Arab States” have acted as the US-Israeli ‘negotiators’ on their behalf.
Or, as Americans used to say …. Silence = Death.
First things first.
1. Amassing obscene wealth.
2. Making more money.
3. Buying more stuff.
4. Diplomacy.
This article names the political structures honestly, but the deeper issue is human. States act to preserve power; peoples act from conscience. Expecting moral clarity from governments built around strategic alignment rather than justice will always mislead us.
The ongoing violence carried out by Israel — in Gaza now and across many decades — is a stark reminder of what happens when political systems operate without regard for human life.
So the question is not why Arab regimes fail to stand with Palestine. It is why we continue to accept political orders that do not reflect the compassion and moral intuition already alive in ordinary people. The suffering of Palestinians is not a regional matter; it is a wound to the whole human family.
Any real way forward will come from the awakening of the one humanity — the recognition that the dignity of any people is inseparable from the dignity of all. Speaking of Palestine is speaking of our shared capacity to feel another’s pain as our own, and to act from the human heart.
Annette, You have rightly spoken. May all be listening.
The Palestinians need “democracy movements” to occur across Europe, the Middle East and among the Norte Americanos.
Since I seem to take Annette’s point as saying that ‘governments of the people, by the people, and for the people’ would not support genocide for profit against some of the people.
People over Profits!
Interesting points here. At a government or regime level, self-interests always trump [!] the populations’ interests and sentiments – it is the same world-wide as the ruling classes exploit their positions for power & profit.
However, as the weakness and miscalculations of the US-Israeli partnership become ever more apparent, and the Gulf States discovering that they are totally unprotected by the US and that Israel is willing to attack them also [Doha, Qatar], they are now being forced to recalibrate and realign.
It is hard to see how, in future, they will be as willing and compliant with US demands after this. Their so-called protector has failed them badly and even made them into targets. They will have suffered massive economic damage because of the recklessness of the US, which is highly unlikely to compensate them.
This leaves the problem of Israel and of what condition it is in after this war finishes and whether it still poses such a big threat to the region. If it does, then the Gulf State security realignment might present an opportunity for them to unite against Israel and, in doing so, actively support Palestine.
Regardless of the final outcome, it is obvious now that both the US and Israel are going to be severely weakened by this war. Iran also. The other casualties will be the millions in underdeveloped countries that will suffer the most from the ripple effects of the energy supply disruptions. Already, some are predicting famine, disease and mass deaths in poorer countries.
And the global energy and economic aftershocks will be with us, probably, for decades.
The question is, will Iran or China still be willing to make a deal with these Gulf Oil Shieks who rule oppressive regimes? Both Iran and China have given them a chance to change course, but this current war and the open appeals for aggression against Iran from the UAE and KSA may make them more reluctant and less willing to trust the word of Gulf Oil Sheiks in the future.
What if Iran does not want to make a deal? These Gulf Oil Shieks are openly calling for death and destruction in Iran. Is Iran going to forget? China would need the oil, but maybe only for a few more years, as they have become aggressive with green power and vehicles. Will they be as friendly in the future to people who spurned their diplomacy and openly sided with the America that is openly coming to attack China?
Checking Behind the Curtain at the Long Ongoing Barbaric Theater of “Murderous Human Absurdity”
“Arab states are not betraying Palestine”?
The Hashemite dynasty of southwestern Arabia definitely betrayed Palestinian Arabs, when taking into account the entire territory of British Mandated Palestine – prior to 1917, both east and west of the river Jordan; the 78% of Greater Palestine east of the river, arbitrarily ceded to the interloper Hashemite Arabs of southwestern Arabia for services rendered to the divide and rule colonially occupied British during WW I
The Hashemite Arabs, led by Sharif Hussein of Mecca, were considered foreign to the Levant and Mesopotamia. After rebelling against the Ottoman Empire in WWI with British support, they were installed as rulers of newly created, artificial nations like Iraq and Transjordan, leading some to view them as colonial-appointed agents or interlopers, rather than local leaders. Columbia Center for Archaeology +3
Key Perspectives on the Hashemites as “Interlopers”:
• Foreign Rulers: The Hashemites were originally from the Hejaz (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) and possessed no deep historical, tribal, or family ties to the areas they were asked to rule in Iraq or Transjordan by Britain.
• British Sponsorship: Their power was heavily dependent on the British Empire (particularly through figures like Winston Churchill) following the 1916 Arab Revolt. They were used to fill power vacuums in areas where they were effectively outsiders.
• Palestinian Perspective: In the context of Jordan (formerly Transjordan), the ruling Hashemite dynasty has been described as a “transplanted” power, ruling over a population largely composed of Palestinians.
• Regional Rejection: Their rule was often challenged. In Syria, they were quickly removed (1920), and in Iraq, they were viewed as puppets of colonial interests, leading to their violent overthrow in 1958.
• Legacy of Conflict: The Hashemite dynasty’s rise forced them to suppress regional uprisings, such as the 1970 conflict with the PLO, to maintain their power in a state where they were not native.
Ancient Palestine was a strategically vital region in the Fertile Crescent, connecting Africa and Asia, and home to diverse cultures including Canaanites and Israelites.
Known as Canaan in the Bronze Age, it was later dominated by empires like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Rome, with the name stemming from the Philistines who settled the coast. Palestinian History Tapestry +4
Just as the family owned and operated Emirati dictatorships around Persia/Iran, so too the dynastic Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for the Palestinians.
Despite this, the Hashemite dynasty has managed to maintain its rule in Jordan for over a century, presenting themselves as a stabilizing force and custodians of Islamic holy sites. Columbia Center for Archaeology +1
What was the total population of British Mandated Trans Jordan prior to 1948?
The population of the British Mandate of Transjordan grew from approximately 230,000 in 1921 to over 300,000–350,000 by the early 1940s, and about 368,000 by 1947. The vast majority were Muslim Arab, with a smaller minority of Christian and Circassian/Chechen inhabitants.
Prior to the so-called 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the population of Transjordan (now Jordan) was primarily indigenous Transjordanian/Bedouin, with a small percentage of Palestinian origin. Following the 1948 war, approximately 70,000 Palestinians fled to the East Bank, which then had an indigenous Palestinian population of about 440,000, making the initial influx a minority of the total population at that specific time, this is explained on (palquest.palestine-studies.org).
According to the facts of the detailed data:
The Hashemite Arabs, led by Sharif Hussein of Mecca, were considered foreign to the Levant and Mesopotamia. After rebelling against the Ottoman Empire in WWI with British support, they were installed as rulers of newly created, artificial nations like Iraq and Transjordan, leading some to view them as colonial-appointed agents or interlopers, rather than local leaders. Columbia Center for Archaeology +3
Prior to the so-called 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Transjordan was predominantly populated by indigenous Transjordanian Bedouin and sedentary (rural/urban) populations, with a very small percentage of inhabitants originating from west of the Jordan River.
The vast majority of the Palestinian population in Jordan today (estimated at 50%–70%) arrived as refugees in 1948 and 1967. This statistic is highly questionable!
What was the total population of Transjordan prior to it becoming the Kingdom of Jordan?
The total population of Transjordan was approximately 300,000 to 350,000 in the early 1940s, just prior to it becoming the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in May 1946. A 1946 census, conducted shortly before independence, recorded a population of roughly 433,659, although this figure might have been inflated for rationing purposes.
Key Population Data for Transjordan (1921–1946):
• 1921–1924: Upon its establishment as an Emirate, the population was estimated to be around 200,000 to 230,000.
• 1940s: By the early 1940s, the population grew to an estimated 300,000–350,000.
• 1946: A census recorded 433,659 people, which included roughly 334,398 in towns/villages and 99,261 nomads.
• Demographic Composition: The population was mostly Arab Muslims, with approximately 10,000 Circassians and Chechens, and about 15,000 Christians in the 1920s. refugeinjordan.com +4
Prior to 1948, the population growth was considered natural and relatively stable compared to the rapid increases that occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which in essence means, given documented prolific birthrates, the vast majority of the Palestinian population in Jordan today is “estimated at 50%–70%” of the total Jordanian population.
Note: Some paraphrasing attributed to AI Overview
“AI and the human creators behind it can make mistakes.”
Clientele!
“Others are so dependent on American protection, validation, or military partnership that calling them “partners” barely conceals the hierarchy embedded in the relationship.”
American protection!!! I keep reading this phrase, but never understand from whom or what they are seeking protection.
The only one i can see threatening Arab countries is israel.