Follow us on social

google cta
50346538347_dba98b157e_o-scaled

Why Bahrain is staying the normalization course with Israel

While Manama is unlikely to reverse course on diplomatic ties with Israel, the Palestinian cause still has strong support in Bahraini society.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Late last month, Israel’s chief diplomat Yair Lapid visited Bahrain for the opening of his country’s embassy in Manama. He met with King Hamad Al Khalifa, Lapid’s counterpart Abdullatif bin Rashid Alzayani, and other high-ranking Bahraini officials.

Yet many in the Arabian archipelago were unhappy. Scores of Bahrainis took to the streets in Manama and Sitra (an island that has been described as “a hotbed of Shia resistance” to the regime) to protest Lapid’s visit.

They also demanded the closure of Israel’s diplomatic mission. Footage showed at least one burning Israeli flag. Al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s dominant Shia opposition political party which the government dissolved in 2016, released a statement condemning the top Israeli diplomat’s visit.

"The protests in Bahrain were a reminder to all other Arab states that Palestine remains important to the 'Arab Street' - a fact that leaders in the region must consider before going down the normalization route with Israel"

Such unrest and outcry came as no shock given that less than 20 percent of Bahrainis support formalised relations with Israel, according to one poll cited by ILTV Israel News. Nonetheless, the protests were a reminder to all other Arab states that Palestine remains important to the ‘Arab Street’ - a fact that leaders in the region must consider before going down the normalization route with Israel.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, as the first two Arab states in the Abraham Accords, faced significantly different levels of domestic and regional threats because of their decisions to formalize relations with Tel Aviv. The risks of the Abraham Accords playing out in problematic ways have been much higher in the island kingdom than in the UAE, which enjoys far more political stability and wealth than Bahrain.

Bahrain has experienced sporadic episodes of militancy as years-old political and social problems remain unresolved. The country’s ruler-ruled social contract has come under significant stress with the government becoming dependent on external (Emirati and Saudi) financial and security assistance.

This is to say that Bahrain’s situation is unique when it comes to the Abraham Accords “because the monarchy is already illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the population,” said Ryan Bohl, a Middle East analyst at risk consultancy Stratfor/Rane, in an interview with The New Arab.

In Bahrain, there has been a history of street activism. Compared to the UAE, Bahrain has a strong civil society - one that has long cared about the Palestinian cause. “As early as 1947, news of the United Nations partition plan sparked demonstrations in Manama, where a rising movement for liberation from British colonial rule demanded solidarity with the Palestinians,” explained Dr Elham Fakhro, a visiting scholar at the UK’s University of Exeter.

“Demonstrations in their favor erupted at every juncture: during the 1956, 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, during Israel’s 1982 siege and bombardment of Beirut and during successive Israeli assaults on the Gaza Strip in 2002 and 2006.” Amid the Arab Spring protests of 2011, there were cases of Bahrainis waiving both Bahraini and Palestinian flags. The inclusion of the latter represented pan-Arab unity to some and a common struggle against injustice to others.

Even prior to the Abraham Accords, Bahraini citizens protested their government’s perceived abandonment of the Palestinian struggle when Manama was helping the Trump administration sell the “Deal of the Century” to a wider Middle Eastern audience.

Then after Bahrain joined the Abraham Accords in 2020, 17 political and civil society organizations representing widespread segments of Bahrain’s society (Sunni and Shia, secular and Islamist, labour groups, leftists, etc.) signed a statement denouncing normalization.

“Protests and political demonstrations in Bahrain are nothing new, although from the authorities' point of view it is probably not ideal that another source of grievance has been added to an already combustible mix, especially one that has the potential to cut across sectarian and other divides in the country,” Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at the Baker Institute, told TNA.

“Bahrain has always had a strong pan-Arab and Islamic current in its domestic politics, going back to the earliest stages of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the latest protests indicate that the issue retains its mobilizing power among Bahraini citizens from multiple backgrounds.”

"Bahrain's situation is unique when it comes to the Abraham Accords because the monarchy is already illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the population"

Bahrain stays the normalization course

Notwithstanding domestic risks, it is difficult to see Manama reversing course when it comes to Israel. As the only Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) state to refrain from making any diplomatic overtures to Iran this year, Bahrain remains extremely concerned about (what officials in Manama see as) a grave threat to Bahraini security posed by Tehran.

Viewing Israel as an important partner in the struggle against Iran’s foreign policy agendas, Bahrain sees the Jewish state as an important player for Manama to move closer to.

This is especially so against the backdrop of mounting concerns about Washington’s commitment to the region in the aftermath of the botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Additionally, although US officials will continue discussing human rights abuses in Bahrain, the Gulf kingdom’s normalized relationship with Israel and outreach to Jewish organizations in North America will enhance the Manama regime’s reputation in Washington.

Even before the 2011 Arab Spring crisis that put Bahrain’s human rights abuses in more of an international spotlight, the leadership in Manama began highlighting Bahrain’s tolerance of Jews and the history of this religious minority in the country. Some observers saw such efforts as part of a PR campaign aimed at cementing ties between Washington and the GCC state hosting the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and enjoying Major non-NATO Ally status since 2002.

Expansion of the Abraham Accords

Looking ahead, with the US and Israel working to bring more Arab states into the Abraham Accords, these governments in the region face a dilemma. Should they join the UAE and Bahrain in trying to bury the Palestinian issue in exchange for normalized relations with Israel? Or should they stand by the Arab Peace Initiative (linking normalization to Israel returning to its 1967 borders and accepting a sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem)?

If one ignores the people and the concept of Palestine altogether, it is understandable why some Arab governments have chosen the normalization route and why others may do so before long. Whether focused on military ties, trade, investment, technology, energy, agriculture, tourism, education, or countless other domains, Arab countries can gain from formalized partnerships with Israel - a wealthy, highly educated, and innovative country.

The Arab states which normalized relations with Tel Aviv last year seek to benefit from newly formalised relations with Israel in some ambitious ways.

But, again, a problem for at least some of these governments is that many Arab countries’ populations are unlikely to ignore the Palestinian plight altogether. This reality was on display in Bahrain following Lapid’s recent visit. It was also highlighted in May when anti-Israel protests took place in 46 Moroccan cities amid the Gaza-Israel war.

As the US is working to bring more Arab and Muslim countries onto the normalization route, Washington will want to help Bahrain’s government and others contain any destabilizing consequences of their decision to open full-fledged diplomatic relations with Israel.

This is largely so that other states in the Middle East and/or Africa will look at the experience of countries in the Abraham Accords and be encouraged to join. As those in Biden’s team have repeatedly stated, the expansion of the Abraham Accords is a goal for the administration when it comes to the Middle East.

This article has been republished with permission from The New Arab.


President Donald J. Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyanisigns sign the Abraham Accords Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Arlington cemetery
Top photo credit: Autumn time in Arlington National cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington DC. (Shutterstock/Orhan Cam)

America First? For DC swamp, it's always 'War First'

Military Industrial Complex

The Washington establishment’s long war against reality has led our country into one disastrous foreign intervention after another.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same. They tell us that a country is a threat to America, or more broadly, a threat to American democratic principles. Thus, they say the mission to topple a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom and prosperity to foreign lands. The warmongers will even insist it’s not a choice, but that it’s imperative to wage war.

keep readingShow less
Trump Maduro Cheney
Top image credit: Brian Jason, StringerAL, Joseph Sohm via shutterstock.com

Dick Cheney's ghost has a playbook for war in Venezuela

Latin America

Former Vice President Richard Cheney, who died a few days ago at the age of 84, gave a speech to a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2002 in which the most noteworthy line was, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

The speech was essentially the kickoff of the intense campaign by the George W. Bush administration to sell a war in Iraq, which it would launch the following March. The campaign had to be intense, because it was selling a war of aggression — the first major offensive war that the United States would initiate in over a century. That war will forever be a major part of Cheney’s legacy.

keep readingShow less
Panama invasion 1989
Top photo credit: One of approximately 100 Panamanian demonstrators in favor of the Vatican handing over General Noriega to the US, waves a Panamanian and US flag. December 28, 1989 REUTERS/Zoraida Diaz

Invading Panama and deposing Noriega in 1989 was easy, right?

Latin America

On Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. military launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama. The target: dictator, drug trafficker, and former CIA informant Manuel Noriega.

Citing the protection of U.S. citizens living in Panama, the lack of democracy, and illegal drug flows, the George H.W. Bush administration said Noriega must go. Within days of the invasion, he was captured, bound up and sent back to the United States to face racketeering and drug trafficking charges. U.S. forces fought on in Panama for several weeks before mopping up the operation and handing the keys back to a new president, Noriega opposition leader Guillermo Endar, who international observers said had won the 1989 election that Noriega later annulled. He was sworn in with the help of U.S. forces hours after the invasion.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.