There is a fundamental contradiction between the goals of KSA and "Israel" and the end that each of them seeks for this genocide despite their opposition to the aspirations of the Palestinian people (Illustrated by Mahdi Rteil for Al Mayadeen English)

The Israeli war on Gaza has entered its fourth month. The occupation regime faces an open case in the International Court of Justice for carrying out genocide on the one hand and is exposed to activism against the crimes it is committing by all humanitarian organizations around the world, as well as the numerous states that oppose its practices. Despite all of this, and in contradiction to all logic, there is still strong talk about normalizing ties between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Israeli regime.

This may seem utterly illogical at first glance, given that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia markets itself as one of the most important Arab and Islamic powers, and thus positions itself as a defender of the interests of this group. How, then, does it extend its hand to those who not only commit these crimes against humanity but also those whose leaders make genocidal statements? This, in addition to a clear and unequivocal rejection of the two-state solution that Saudi Arabia has set as a condition for normalizing relations, makes the situation more bizarre.

Answering these questions requires an analysis of the geopolitical reality in the region, alongside a short historical overview, and a presentation of the interests and concerns of each party, as well as their political and security goals.

US hegemony and its goals in the war in Gaza

Despite the sharp transformations that have affected the international system in the recent period, which mainly affected the unilateral dominance of the United States after the Cold War, Washington still maintains the role of the primary hegemon who is trying to prevent the system from turning fully multipolar.

US hegemony depends on a military power represented by the world's top military budget, which is equivalent to about 40% of all global military spending, as well as a large number of military bases around the planet. In addition to military power, the United States has an unparalleled ability to influence the global economy due to countries using the US dollar as a trusted currency for exchange. US military power punishes countries that do not respect its hegemony, or in most cases use sanctions linked to its banking and monetary system.

As a hegemon, the United States works to prevent the formation of regional powers that oppose it, whether alliances or sovereign states. Here we turn to the series of alliances undertaken by the United States, which rely mainly on focal points around the planet to prevent powerful countries from challenging its hegemony. Former US State Secretary Mike Pompeo defines these entities or states as “beacons of democracy,” although they are more akin to land-based aircraft carriers. These entities are Taiwan, "Israel" and Ukraine.

The United States is using Taiwan, in addition to Japan and South Korea, mainly to prevent China from becoming an absolute regional hegemon in East Asia or as a method to contain its power projection. It is using Ukraine in Europe to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon in Eastern Europe and to also prevent Germany from becoming a hegemon in Western Europe. On the other hand, "Israel" represents an exception to American policy. Aside from the ideological aspect, "Israel" plays the role of the region’s policeman par excellence for the United States either by destroying or deterring all countries with sovereign national projects. "Israel" here is the focus of the fight against the axis of resistance in West Asia, led by Iran, to prevent this axis from turning into a regional hegemon and anti-American force.

In light of this, any weakening of the Israelis, or threat to them, from a geopolitical standpoint poses a risk to the hegemony of the United States in one of the most important spots in the world from a geographical standpoint, as well as the one richest in fossil energy resources. In this context, the United States is more concerned about "Israel's" security than "Israel" itself. But, as an absolute hegemon, it faces dilemmas that are radically different from those faced by "Israel". Such discrepancy is what is putting the two parties on opposite sides with time, and this is what we will discuss in more detail in the section related to the Israelis of the article.

Balance of power in the Middle East

"Israel", Saudi Arabia, and most of the Gulf states belong to the American axis in the West Asia region, and despite the Chinese breakthrough in economic investment, US-Western hegemony over these countries is still at its height. Because of Saudi Arabia's self-proclaimed Islamic authority, it faces difficulty in normalizing its relations with the Israeli entity due to the so-called "Arab street's" continued opposition to such a step, and the genocide in Gaza has contributed to reviving the Palestinian cause in an important part of this street.

From its inception, Saudi Arabia has primarily benefited from or fought national states in traditional centers of power, such as Nasser's Egypt, or initially cooperated with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq before sacrificing him in the US-led coalition invasion in 1991. Finally, it financed the destruction of Syria and added fuel to the fire of the war that has been raging since 2011. As a non-traditional power with fewer population that only owns holy places and oil wealth, it benefits mainly from neutralizing the positions of traditional powers in the region, which has a larger population. Without absolute American protection for the Gulf states, and an Israeli military role in the subjugation process, Saudi Arabia’s role will be incomplete or unachievable.

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Saudi Arabia has been hostile to it, not only because it was presenting an Islamic sovereign counterweight that was exclusive to Saudi Arabia in the previous stage, but because it threatens the existing dependency structure in the region as it is the main element in the axis of resistance.

Following Yemen entering the Resistance Axis, the war on Syria's failure to change the regime, and the loss of Israeli deterrence on October 7, normalization and direct military cooperation became more necessary for the American Axis members to confront the dangers of the liberation process led by the Resistance Axis. "Israel", which was supposed to be the leader of this axis militarily, technologically, and financially, is still reeling from the wounds of October 7. What makes matters worse nowadays is that the United States is facing a crisis in Ukraine, and it needs to move to confront China in East Asia as quickly as possible.

Why does Saudi Arabia act the way it does?

At a point before October 7, and according to press leaks, one of Saudi Arabia’s conditions for normalizing relations with "Israel" was its direct association with the United States through a defense treaty similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. This condition indicates the primacy of security for Saudi Arabia. The primacy of security has been greatly enhanced after the failure of the Saudi coalition to impose its will on Yemen, and Yemen has turned into an essential and effective pillar in the current war in support of Gaza.

Normalization in this context was a necessity for Gulf security, which since 1991 has been closely linked to the Western security concept through the stationing of more than 40,000 American soldiers in the region. Normalization, then, was not a transitional and pivotal point as former US President Trump tried to market, but merely a shift in the level of security and military relations that already existed, even if no direct diplomatic and trade relations existed.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United States here are accelerating toward normalization while the blood has not yet dried in Gaza, as each of them is aware of the problem that may be imposed by the shift of hegemonic focus from West Asia to East Asia. Normalizing ties between Saudi Arabia and "Israel" here aims primarily to bridge any potential gap in military power to confront the axis of resistance in the future.

The problem here is that Saudi Arabia stipulated a two-state solution as the condition for the normalization process. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken exposed the Saudis when he announced that a mere commitment to this solution by the Israelis is sufficient and not its immediate implementation. The Saudis certainly objected and denied the announcement, but based on the course of events, it would not be unlikely that they made such a pledge.

The two-state solution here is not presented by Saudi Arabia because it embraces the Palestinian issue nor that it is particularly fond of the Palestinian people and its ambitions, but in an attempt to bury the main point of conflict between the Arabs and the Zionists, in preparation for its leadership of this future Arab-Israeli alliance.

The two-state solution proposed by Saudi Arabia, despite its meager demands, and even though it is giving up most of historical Palestine, is rejected by the Israeli entity in all its sects, right, and left, above and below.

Saudi Arabia, then, faces a major dilemma. On the one hand, it sees normalization as a future security necessity, since there are no guarantees about the future of the region after the Arab uprisings in 2011 if they are to occur again in the context of the massacre taking place in Gaza. In other words, no one can guarantee that the normalization will not be rejected by the Arab street and lead to the situation exploding in the region if the Saudis are unable to obtain something that they can market as a solution to the Palestinian issue.

In conclusion, normalizing relations with the Zionists who insist on ethnic cleansing and the policy of apartheid and treating the Palestinians as if they were sub-humans may be a step that carries dangers to Saudi Arabia and its Axis that are greater than the danger of the Axis of resistance. Here, Saudi Arabia, led by Mohammed bin Salman, sees itself as being forced to bet on one of two losing horses.

An Israeli checkmate

The Zionist project, as the last settler colonial project, depends on many ideological foundations supported by material strength for survival. The Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7 demonstrated the extent of the Israelis’ fateful dependence on American support, not only in terms of weapons, technology, and international diplomatic backing in the UNSC but also through the presence of direct military action for the first time, represented by sending two aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarine.

“Israel” in this context is a land-based aircraft carrier for the US hegemon in the region. On another note, "Israel" must show the Arabs surrounding it that it is omnipotent. Most of these Arabs have come under states ruled by elites who marketed their legitimacy through some sort of a liberal dream and the absurdity of resistance to the US. Therefore, these elites also derive their legitimacy from "Israel" itself, in one way or another, and from its chieftain, the United States. "Israel" must also convince the settlers to reside by planting the idea of its invincibility and its capability to deter everyone at the same time at all spectrums through disproportionate punishment.

Any shaking of these concepts exposes this Western fortress in West Asia to the dangers of collapse, disintegration, or rolling a downhill path. Internally, the combination of the extremism and racism of the Zionist doctrine and the settlers' belief in "Israel's" invincibility succeeded in greatly complicating the scene. Due to the continuous pivoting of Israeli politics towards the extreme right, it is natural that exaggeration in setting and inflating war goals is the daily bread of politicians. This means that achieving a total and comprehensive victory becomes not an option, but rather a necessity to preserve this mythical self-image that Israeli society has, or it will simply disintegrate and enter into an internal conflict that unleashes reverse migration.

As a result, most Israelis believe, according to opinion polls, that some sort of complete victory over the resistance in Palestine should be the goal, as crazy and unachievable as this goal is. Most Israelis believe that “voluntary migration” a.k.a ethnic cleansing is something that should be encouraged and carried out in Gaza, not to mention the genocidal statements made by Israeli officials, which alerted them to one of the most clear genocides in history, not only in action but in intent. Which is unambiguous.

In light of the above, the goals of Israeli politics and society here contradict those of Saudi Arabia. Here Israeli exceptionalism appears. There is no one like "Israel". Normal countries win without having absurd conditions of their victory being the genocide of the other party. Racist colonial entities on the other hand need that.

Because of the high and unachievable conditions for victory, "Israel" has placed itself in a checkmate, either an internal conflict, or destruction that will have a disastrous impact not only on its international reputation and relations, but at the expense of sabotaging the path of normalization and its law, and even the risk of revolutions erupting in the Arab world, endangering the pro-US Saudi leadership.

US-sponsored Israeli-KSA ties between a rock and a hard place

Although Saudi Arabia and "Israel" largely agree on the goal of eliminating resistance in Gaza, they differ sharply in the way and outcome each side prefers for the war to lead to.

Given the primacy of the Chinese challenge to American hegemony, the United States wants, in any way, to freeze the current situation in West Asia and maintain its policeman there, i.e. "Israel", as it pivots east. The failure to weaken Russia and push its political system to collapse has strengthened the United States' desire to avoid a war that it sees as secondary in West Asia while China grows stronger.

There is no doubt that America wants to eliminate the resistance movements, thus a victory of the Israelis in Gaza is essential to the US more than "Israel" itself, but it fears that the genocide in Gaza will lead to the eruption of a war in the region led by the resistance axis on the one hand. On the other hand, it fears a political collapse and revolutions in the fabric of its allied countries. Its allies in the region are mainly Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Therefore, the ideal outcome is a two-state solution, and an alliance of Arab-Israeli regimes to confront the axis of resistance while reducing the cost of US presence in the region.

The Saudi view here is very close to the American one, as it wants to end the resistance movements in the Arab world as a continuation of its victory over the national projects of the last century, but it fears that the shedding of Palestinian blood might push its current leadership of the Arab world, ensured by subjugating Egypt and destroying Iraq and Syria, to the abyss. Therefore, it prefers to end the Palestinian cause through a two-state solution, establish a Saudi-Israeli alliance with US support, and deter the Axis of resistance.

The Israelis, based on the above, are in a completely different place. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza and eliminate the resistance, no matter how much it costs in human losses, and they do not intend to back down, even if it means dragging the United States into a regional war that is not one of its current priorities.

Indeed, the dog is following here and not the opposite. It is not that the Israelis are craving for a regional war for their own sake, but rather because they, as the last settler colonial entity and the last of the "exceptional peoples" in the international system, believe that they are entitled to what no one else is entitled to, ensuring the survival of their racist regime.

In light of the racist and superior nature of their regime, they are forced to show those whom they see and treat as sub-humans who are the bosses here, otherwise, the social and political cohesion of the Israeli colonial entity will be in danger.

Conclusion

There is a fundamental contradiction between the goals of each party and the end that each of them seeks for this genocide despite their opposition to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. These differences appear incompatible, even if the interest is common, as any concession from any party here means that it exposes its other future ally to a future existential threat.

It is unlikely that the United States will be able to reconcile the two parties without one of them giving up what it declares to be its core interests and putting its fate in jeopardy. Another option would be that the already existing war expands and blows the chessboard and all the pieces away. What is certain is that the coming days will bring radical and pivotal changes to the nature of international and regional relations in West Asia, if they do not lead to the collapse of some states and regimes.

As Vladimir Lenin said: "There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen," and it appears we are living in such an era.