Dana El Kurd, University of Richmond
According to David Lake (2018), the international order “is the product of incentives for state-to-state hierarchy, the interests of the dominant and subordinate states—especially the distance between their policy preferences,” But it isn’t only power and preferences: the international order depends on “international legitimacy” as a “social construct dependent on the beliefs of many individuals in subordinate states” (Lake 13). The international order furthermore operates differently across regions, in some cases relying on legitimacy and invitation by domestic actors, and in other cases relying on coercive control and authoritarian alliances. Lake identifies the Middle East and North Africa region in particular as a place where American hierarchy necessitated the latter, rather than the former.
Lake’s argument has been corroborated in a variety of ways, and across a variety of dimensions. Amaney Jamal, in an assessment of pro-democracy sentiments in the region, concluded that American intervention had the negative impact of creating support for authoritarian status quos (Jamal 2012). In a similar vein, Andrew Stravers and I, in our examination of American military basing, concluded that the US relied on “strategic autocracy” for its objectives in the MENA region (Stravers & El Kurd 2020). Studies on American-backed regime change, war on terror policies, and democracy promotion have found similar results: the US has directly or indirectly supported and reproduced authoritarianism in the region to support its own interests.
Such a finding is not a surprise for those who have followed MENA politics. However, there is an understudied factor in creating these dynamics, one that has often eluded political scientists: the role of Palestine. The Palestine question – and America’s position on the matter in its unqualified support for Israel – has long shaped the American relationship to the MENA region. To uphold the American-Israel relationship, the US has consistently relied on authoritarian alliances and blocked the development of accountable governance. The Palestine question has also influenced anti-authoritarian resistance to these dynamics and has always played a crucial role in waves of mass protest and dissent.
In this essay, I will outline the ways in which the Palestine question continues to shape American policy in its support for authoritarian regimes, and proliferation of authoritarian practices. I will also demonstrate the ways in which Palestine, historically, was a crucial factor in understanding anti-authoritarian politics in the region. Today, in the shadow of genocide in Gaza, Palestine may also become – paradoxically – a conduit to anti-American and pro-authoritarian sentiment both in the region and in the global North.
American policy and authoritarian practices
The link between American foreign policy and authoritarianism in the MENA region is long-standing and well-corroborated. During the last two administrations, this linkage went beyond military and intelligence engagement, or war on terror policies. In ways that remain unacknowledged by US officials and the DC establishment, the push for Arab-Israeli normalization (or “peace” deals) under the rubric of the “Abraham Accords” process have accelerated this linkage as Washington pushes Arab states to adopt policies which are deeply unpopular with populations increasingly mobilized by the Palestinian issue (El Kurd 2024).
Arab-Israeli normalization, and the extent to which the US has made the policy a center point of its regional strategy, has been critical for two main reasons. First, Arab-Israeli normalization deals – the Abraham Accords and subsequent cooperation such as the Negev Forum – have increased the integration of the Israeli state into the regional authoritarian order. Arab-Israeli cooperation over shared threats, such as Iran and its proxies and, oftentimes, the perceived radicalizing effect of the Palestinian question, has reached unprecedented levels.
Second, Arab-Israeli normalization deals have also provided Arab regimes the tools and discourses needed to consolidate authoritarian control over their own citizens. To be sure, Israel is not the only source of repressive technology. Nevertheless, increased and formalized ties with the Israeli state have allowed regimes in the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain to have access to surveillance technology and to launch initiatives for the development of repressive tools (Fatafta 2021). The very well-known example is the use of Pegasus software to target dissidents, but this is just one instance. Many such technologies exist, and Arab regimes are gaining or developing access to them in a variety of ways. Companies such as Dark Matter – based in the UAE, staffed by Israeli & American intelligence experts –are such an example, and have a tangible effect on authoritarian conditions in the UAE itself and around the region. As investigative reporting has since repeatedly confirmed, such initiatives have targeted not only foreign governments at odds with these regimes, but local dissidents and journalists as well.
Perhaps more detrimental to long-term conditions in the region are the propaganda and misinformation efforts of these regimes in the lead up to, and aftermath, of Arab-Israeli peace deals. Propaganda and misinformation, and the attempt to impose a particular discourse around government policies, are an authoritarian practice because they “sabotage accountability to people…over whom a political actor exerts control” (Glasius 2018). Because Arab publics are consistently in support of the Palestinian cause and see an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict tied to the issue of Palestinian self-determination, regimes pursuing normalization deals recognize that these will be deeply unpopular. As a result, they engage in propaganda and misinformation efforts, and police speech, in order to enforce a particular discourse around the deals and silence critique.
In the case of the Abraham Accords signatories, in particular the UAE, this propaganda and misinformation has centered on two main arguments: first, that Palestinians are nefarious and violent actors that do not deserve support and have indeed misled the Arab publics, and second that Arab-Israeli peace is a way of promoting “tolerance” and advancing Arab societies culturally (El Kurd 2023). Arab-Israeli peace deals have been painted as a way in which benevolent Arab governments can modernize their societies, beyond antiquated notions of intra-Arab solidarity or support for Palestinian self-determination.
Such propaganda and misinformation efforts are supported by American policy and resources. For instance, organizations such as the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, a US-based NGO headed by a former Trump administration official and staffed by former Israeli bureaucrats, assists Arab regimes in building out and disseminating this narrative within Arab states and in Washington DC. US embassies in signatory countries and in Israel have also lent their support to Arab-Israeli initiatives, such as by funding the UAE-Israel Business Council or the Gulf-Israel Women’s Forum that brings together Israeli policymakers with Arab businesswomen and policymakers.
Criticisms of these initiatives or, indeed, the entire framing of Arab-Israeli normalization as peace, are deemed “intolerant” or antisemitic. Journalists, writers, and activists who have criticized ongoing normalization in the wake of increased Israeli aggression in Palestine, or who have pinpointed the problem not in the “intolerance” of Arab societies but rather the violence of the Israeli state, have been reported on, banned from travel, and in other ways repressed and silenced.
American support for Arab-Israeli normalization deals thus facilitates the development of these authoritarian practices and worsening authoritarian conditions in the signatory countries and the broader region where these regimes have reach.
Palestine and anti-authoritarianism
Palestine is a key factor in understanding anti-authoritarian dissent in the MENA region, not only because of the recent trends in Arab-Israeli normalization. Using the case of Qatari pro-Palestine activists, I previously argued that Palestine is a “gateway to dissent” because the issue had three main impacts on citizens of Arab countries: “1) introducing activists in their formative years to the idea of political agency, 2) providing a space to engage in citizenship-building practices, and 3) generating spillover effects in the personal development of activists as well as in civil society more broadly” (El Kurd 2022).
Moreover, oral histories of the Arab Spring provide a great deal of evidence to suggest that these dynamics are not specific to Qatar or the Arab Gulf states but are in fact replicated consistently across the region (Butland 2022). Activists involved in the January 25th uprising in Egypt, for example, cited Palestine consistently (and the 2nd intifada in particular) as the key factor in their politicization. Those same activists later on went to found and participate in key organizations, such as the Kefaya movement, the Revolutionary Socialists, the April 6th movement, and more.
It is indeed this very issue that made the pro-democracy movements first concerning to the Israeli state, and second less than enticing to American policymakers. Moreover, American support for Israel and Arab authoritarian regimes aligned the US with the pro-authoritarian camp by the estimation of Arab activists. Thus, anti-American sentiment often stemmed from an anti-authoritarian political position.
In the decade since the Arab Spring, polling has regularly corroborated that citizens of the region remain very pro-Palestine and opposed to Arab-Israeli normalization policies without a resolution to the Palestinian question (Arab Opinion Index 2022; Arab Opinion Index 2024). Palestine is thus a clear point of divergence between Arab regimes and their societies. Often, when political opportunities arise, the issue of Palestine leads to dissent and mobilization against regimes on a wider scale than anticipated.
In the shadow of genocide
The impact of the Palestine question on anti-authoritarian politics has taken a turn, however, in the shadow of genocide in Gaza. In particular, the Palestine issue has become a conduit for renewed anti-American sentiment but is no longer necessarily intertwined with anti-authoritarian politics. Instead, the genocide in Gaza has demonstrated to a significant segment of citizens in the region, and indeed across the globe, that the US is willing to squander its limited legitimacy as an actor that – theoretically – could be swayed to support democratic practices, in exchange for continued Israeli dominance at all costs. In this context, the arguments of the axis of resistance, in particular Russia, Iran, and its proxies, have seemed to bear fruit.
As a result, polling shows not only a precipitous decline in positive sentiment towards the US, but initially also a bump in support of Iran and its regional project (Robbins et al 2023). This is especially the case because advocates and organizations that demand accountability for Israel’s actions, but are not supported by the Iranian orbit, have been repressed across the broader region, with many pushed into exile.
These trends have faltered more recently, however, as regional conflict has escalated. Iran’s approval rating with the Palestinian public, for instance, has taken a downturn following Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, as well as Iran’s seeming lack of will in responding to Israeli assassinations of Hamas leaders within their borders (Index Poll #93, Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research).
In the global north, Palestine has energized young people and student activists who have been involved in campus protests, the Uncommitted Movement within the Democratic Party, and other forms of dissent. Those involved within party politics or attempting to change policy in DC have been met with a great deal of resistance, however. This has signaled to the broader movement the seeming futility of engaging with formal politics.
As such, for a segment of the pro-Palestine movement, this moment in which genocide unfolds has also resulted in the legitimization of anti-American pro-authoritarian actors and organizations – those aligning themselves (or implicated with) regimes in Russia, Iran, and China, as well as far-right elements within the US. For instance, the rise in popularity of individuals such as Jackson Hinkle, Jill Stein, and Aaron Mate among pro-Palestine organizations and advocacy groups is evidence of this sort of legitimization. Moreover, the proliferation of a Marxist-Leninist framework among key youth organizations, focused on American imperialism as the target of opposition, has also allowed space for actors associated with American adversaries to weaponize this moment and gain traction. Thus, we see glorification of actors such as the Houthis and Hezbollah, and apologism for the human rights violations of authoritarian regimes across the globe. In this way, Palestine has become a gateway to pro-authoritarian dissent in some quarters, as a direct result of the intransigence of the American position, especially throughout the unfolding genocide.
Conclusion
In these various ways, the Palestine question continues to shape American policy in its support for authoritarian regimes, and proliferation of authoritarian practices. Today with the ongoing genocide in Gaza, US dismissal of the Palestinian question has not only eroded its own legitimacy but has also created a sort of bandwagoning effect with authoritarian actors in pursuit of the erosion of an American-dominated world order. This bodes poorly for authoritarian conditions in the region long-term and increases the likelihood of violent conflict in Israel/Palestine.
Works Cited
“Arab Opinion Index 2022: Executive Summary.” Arab Center Washington DC, 3 Apr. 2023, arabcenterdc.org/resource/arab-opinion-index-2022-executive-summary/.
“Arab Public Opinion about Israel’s War on Gaza.” Arab Center Washington DC, 23 Feb. 2024, arabcenterdc.org/resource/arab-public-opinion-about-israels-war-on-gaza/.
Butland, Phil. “The Rise and Fall (and Rise and Fall) of the Egyptian Left – Part 3.” The Left Berlin, 10 June 2023, www.theleftberlin.com/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-and-fall-of-the-egyptian-left-part-3/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
El Kurd, Dana. “Arab–Israeli Normalization, Repression, and Impunity.” Current History, vol. 123, no. 857, 1 Dec. 2024, pp. 354-356. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2024.123.857.354.
—, —. “Gateway to Dissent: The Role of Pro-Palestine Activism in Opposition to Authoritarianism.” Democratization, vol. 29, no. 7, 21 Feb. 2022, pp. 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2022.2038567. Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.
—, —. “The Paradox of Peace: The Impact of Normalization with Israel on the Arab World.” Global Studies Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, 1 July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad042. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
Fatafta, Marwa. “Transnational Digital Repression in the MENA Region.” Project on Middle East Political Science, 4 Aug. 2021, pomeps.org/transnational-digital-repression-in-the-mena-region.
Glasius, Marlies. “What Authoritarianism Is … and Is Not: A Practice Perspective.” International Affairs, vol. 94, no. 3, 1 May 2018, pp. 515–533.
Jamal, Amaney A. Of Empires and Citizens : Pro-American Democracy or No Democracy at All? Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2012.
Lake, David A. “International Legitimacy Lost? Rule and Resistance When America Is First.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 16, no. 1, 1 Mar. 2018, pp. 6–21, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/international-legitimacy-lost-rule-and-resistance-when-america-is-first/1EB3776D8B18081E528F4A84E229E241, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717003085. Accessed 14 May 2020.
Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. Index Poll #93. 17 Sept. 2024.
Robbins, Michael, et al. “How the Israel-Hamas War in Gaza Is Changing Arab Views.” Foreign Affairs, 14 Dec. 2023, www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-east/how-israel-hamas-war-gaza-changing-arab-views.
Stravers, Andrew, and Dana El Kurd. “Strategic Autocracy: American Military Forces and Regime Type.” Journal of Global Security Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, 16 July 2019, pp. 427–442, https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz019. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020.