Arab Solidarity or Self-Interest? The Crisis of the Arab League

By Mohamad Hammoud

Introduction: A Vision Born from Turmoil

Lebanon - As the smoke of World War II cleared, the Arab world stood at a pivotal moment of transformation. A wave of nationalist fervor surged through the region, driven by a collective yearning for independence and unity. In this climate of hope, the Arab League, officially the League of Arab States, was founded in Cairo on March 22, 1945. This formation was not merely a political maneuver; it was a bold declaration of solidarity among Arab nations, aimed at fostering cooperation, promoting economic growth, and ensuring political stability. It served as a response to external threats, a beacon of hope amidst the shadows of imperialism.

The Formation of the Arab League: A Bold Declaration of Solidarity

However, as time progressed, the League's noble vision began to fray, revealing a stark contrast between aspiration and reality. The promise of unity crumbled under the weight of fragmentation and internal discord, creating an atmosphere of betrayal. Instead of fostering cooperation, the League became a stage for conflicting interests, where solidarity often gave way to division. Tragically, rather than standing firmly with the Palestinians in their struggle for freedom, the League's actions frequently betrayed them and turned against those who supported their cause.

Inaction on Key Issues: The League's Failure to Confront External Threats

One of the most significant failures of the Arab League has been its inability to take united action against "Israel" or the United States, even when their actions directly harm Arab nations and Palestinian interests. While the League has occasionally issued condemnations, it has often lacked the decisive steps necessary to challenge the status quo. Instead, its actions frequently reflected the geopolitical and economic interests of its wealthier members, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This dynamic has created a situation where the League quickly imposes sanctions on dissenting Arab nations while ignoring “Israeli” actions that undermine Arab and Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian Cause: A Central Issue in Disarray

These internal divisions have been most apparent in the Arab League's handling of the Palestinian cause, which was once considered the central issue for the Arab world. The landmark Arab summit in Beirut in 2002 was viewed as a potential turning point, where leaders agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative, offering "Israel" peace and normalization in exchange for withdrawal from occupied territories and recognition of Palestinian rights. However, many signatories were not genuinely committed to the Palestinian cause.

Disunity and Internal Divisions: The League's Struggles

As Egypt and Jordan normalized their relationships with "Israel" without facing condemnation, other Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, followed suit under the Abraham Accords, often with the blessing of Saudi Arabia. This inability to hold member states accountable for their actions further illustrated the League's weakness and diminished its credibility in advocating for Palestinian rights.

The Harsh Stance on Syria: A Reflection of Deeper Rifts

Moreover, the League's disunity has often hindered its ability to form a unified stance. Following the Iraq War in 2003, the League found itself deeply divided over its response. Some members, like Syria, vehemently opposed the US-led invasion, while others, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, chose to support it. This discord went beyond foreign policy and permeated economic and political matters, as wealthier states leveraged their financial influence to sway decision-making within the League. As a result, the organization has struggled to present a cohesive front on critical issues, undermining its effectiveness in addressing the challenges facing the Arab world.

Erosion of Legitimacy: Political Expediency Over Solidarity

The League's unity becomes apparent only when issues involve another Arab nation. When the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, the League swiftly suspended Syria's membership, condemning the Assad regime's violent crackdown. In stark contrast, it remained largely silent in the face of “Israeli” aggression and US interventions, with some Arab members even facilitating “Israeli” actions against Palestinians. This harsh stance toward Syria revealed a deeper rift between wealthy Gulf states, which often dominate the decisions of their smaller neighbors, and those with differing political allegiances.

Furthermore, the League took no substantial action regarding the US invasion of Iraq or “Israel's” ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, reflecting its lack of resolve in confronting genuine threats to Arab sovereignty. The inconsistent stances on regional issues have severely damaged the League's legitimacy. The willingness of some Arab states to recognize "Israel" without a fair settlement for Palestinians illustrates a troubling shift toward political expediency over solidarity.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for the Arab League

In conclusion, the Arab League's history is marked by fragmentation, inaction, and a lack of commitment to its founding principles. The failure to adequately address the Palestinian issue, combined with internal divisions and external pressures from wealthy states, has rendered the League ineffective. Without a more cohesive approach prioritizing collective Arab unity over individual national interests, the Arab League risks irrelevance amid regional and global challenges. Ultimately, it must strive to protect Arab sovereignty and advocate for justice in the region.