Follow us on social

Mbs-egypt-mbz

Why Arab leaders aren't helping the Palestinians in Gaza

As the world watches, they see a number of powerful governments virtually on the sidelines.

Analysis | Middle East

Amid the gruesome Gaza war, passions are running high throughout the Arab world. Huge Palestine solidarity protests have been occurring across the region, and this terrifies many ruling elites who fear the Palestinian issue.

They view it as dangerously destabilizing, and starting months ago, a handful of Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, began clamping down on pro-Palestine activism in their own countries.

Such a crackdown in these Arab countries is no surprise and should be understood on two levels. The first applies to protests in these countries at a foundational level. The second is specific to the Palestinian issue.

Fear of political mobilization

Authoritarian regimes in general often suffer from legitimacy crises and thus see any grassroots activism and mobilization of citizens as potentially threatening. This is the case irrespective of what cause brings the people together. Most Arab governments want to co-opt and regulate such movements and prevent them from ever challenging regime-backed narratives and interests.

"Most Arab states are generally allergic to popular protests,” said Marina Calculli, a Columbia University research fellow in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies, in an interview with RS. “They fear that opening the public sphere and allowing protests of solidarity towards Palestinians could encourage protests against the government and their policies in other fields.”

Other experts agree. “Any sort of popular mobilization or activism that brings people together, either online or on the streets, is a threat to these authoritarian regimes,” Nader Hashemi, the director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, told RS. “Arab states today do not like Palestinian nationalism because Palestinian nationalism is a source of popular mobilization on the Arab street,” he added.

“The Arab world has turned its citizens into consumers basically,” explained Rami G. Khouri, a distinguished public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut, in an interview with RS.

“You can consume anything you want. There are 25 different kinds of fried chicken which you can buy in most Arab capitals and that’s fine. That’s what the governments want is to have people spend their time, money, and thoughts on consumption. But anything that has to do with political power, public policy, and allocation of economic gains have to be controlled by the government,” he added.

Palestine exposes the regimes' vulnerabilities

As to the Palestinian question more specifically, it can tend to expose weakness on the part of many Arab governments. On one hand, Arab regimes must cater to public opinion by making mostly symbolic and token gestures in support of the Palestinian cause. On the other hand, no Arab state wants to confront Israel. For many of them, this has much to do with their relations with the United States on which they rely for security and, in some cases, as a source of critical financial assistance.

With each day that the Gaza war persists, the domestic pressures on these regimes increase, which is the main reason why these governments are unanimous in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It is not so much about the well-being of the Palestinians per se, as it is about maintaining the stability, legitimacy, and even survival of Arab regimes. “Palestine is a just cause,” said Ghada Oueiss, a Lebanese journalist, to RS.

“Yet Arab despots never saw it but from one angle: How can I protect my regime?”

The longer this war continues, there will be more Arab citizens asking obvious questions about why Arab states, which spend massive amounts of money on arms, are not giving so much as one bullet to the Palestinian resistance.

Such questions make these regimes extremely uncomfortable, particularly those Arab states that normalized diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv. At this particular moment, when societies across the MENA region react to what most Arabs and Muslims consider a genocide in Gaza, there is a sense of shame on the part of Arab governments that have worked with the West and Israel to essentially try to bury the Palestinian cause under the normalization accords.

“Most Arab regimes are fundamentally implicated in the attempt to suppress the Palestinian quest for freedom and normalize Israel’s occupation of Palestine, which they have long used as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions from Israel and especially the United States and European countries on areas such as security, energy, and commercial agreements,” according to Calculli, who says these regimes risk being seen as complicit in what is happening in Gaza today.

Also to consider are important historic factors relating to the Arab world’s Cold War-era politics and the rise of populist Arab nationalists, and later the Muslim Brotherhood, and how the Palestinian struggle was important to both.

“The Palestine protests are particularly disliked by governments because they have been exploited historically by the two forces that are most threatening to Arab governments, which are Islamist movements and Leftist movements,” according to Khouri.

“Even from the 1950s it was the Leftists who used the Palestine issue to rally support and challenge the governments,” he explained, “and more recently it was Islamists, so that gives them an extra resonance which governments don’t like.”

The Palestine issue is one that symbolizes a broader struggle for freedom and dignity, which strikes a chord in many Arabs, Muslims, and people of the Global South. For example, last month hundreds of Bahraini political prisoners chanted support for Palestine and waved Palestinian flags when they were released following a royal pardon.

This sense of solidarity between Palestinians and non-Palestinian Arabs is nothing new. “Your freedom is tied to our freedom and our freedom is tied to your freedom” is what Palestinian prisoners told Abdul-Hadi al-Khawaja, a Bahraini prisoner of conscience, in 2012 when he was on a hunger strike.

“The question of Palestine is a question of injustice, and that question of injustice is then interpreted by Arab masses as symbolizing a quest for justice across the board, which also includes criticizing the authoritarian regimes in the Arab world which are monumentally unjust,” Hashemi told RS.

He noted that many Arab governments deny their own citizens the basic right to self-determination within their own societies, which helps explain why ruling elites in these countries view the Palestinian cause as a threat and want to “quash and suffocate it.” Hashemi concluded, “What they prefer is a form of Palestinian nationalism that’s embodied in the politics of the Palestine Authority.”


Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman ((State Department photo by Ron Przysucha)), Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Shutterstock/360b) and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed ( WAM/Handout via REUTERS)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman ((State Department photo by Ron Przysucha)), Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Shutterstock/360b) and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed ( WAM/Handout via REUTERS)
Analysis | Middle East
Pedro Sanchez
Top image credit: Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez during the summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union at the European Council in Brussels in Belgium the 26th of July 2025, Martin Bertrand / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect

Spain's break from Europe on Gaza is more reaction than vision

Europe

The final stage of the Vuelta a España, Spain’s premier cycling race, was abandoned in chaos on Sunday. Pro-Palestinian protesters, chanting “they will not pass,” overturned barriers and occupied the route in Madrid, forcing organizers to cancel the finale and its podium ceremony. The demonstrators’ target was the participation of an Israeli team. In a statement that captured the moment, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez expressed his “deep admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine.”

The event was a vivid public manifestation of a potent political sentiment in Spain — one that the Sánchez government has both responded to and, through its foreign policy, legitimized. This dynamic has propelled Spain into becoming the European Union’s most vocal dissenting voice on the war in Gaza, marking a significant break from the transatlantic foreign policy orthodoxy.

Sanchez’s support for the protesters was not merely rhetorical. On Monday, he escalated his stance, explicitly calling for Israel to be barred from international sports competitions, drawing a direct parallel to the exclusion of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. “Our position is clear and categorical: as long as the barbarity continues, neither Russia nor Israel should participate in any international competition,” he said. This position, which angered Israel and Spanish conservatives alike, was further amplified by his culture minister, who suggested Spain should boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel participates.

More significantly, it emerged that his government had backed its strong words with concrete action, cancelling a €700 million ($825 million) contract for Israeli-designed rocket launchers. This move, following an earlier announcement of measures aimed at stopping what it called “the genocide in Gaza,” demonstrates a willingness to leverage economic and diplomatic tools that other EU capitals have avoided.

Sánchez, a master political survivalist, has not undergone a grand ideological conversion to anti-interventionism. Instead, he has proven highly adept at reading and navigating domestic political currents. His government’s stance on Israel and Palestine is a pragmatic reflection of his coalition that depends on the support of the left for which this is a non-negotiable priority.

This instinct for pragmatic divergence extends beyond Gaza. Sánchez has flatly refused to commit to NATO’s target of spending 5% of GDP on defense demanded by the U.S. President Donald Trump and embraced by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, citing budgetary constraints and social priorities.

Furthermore, Spain has courted a role as a facilitator between great powers. This ambition was realized when Madrid hosted a critical high level meeting between U.S. and Chinese trade officials on September 15 — a meeting Trump lauded as successful while reaffirming “a very strong relationship” between the U.S. and China. This outreach is part of a consistent policy; Sánchez’s own visit to Beijing, at a time when other EU leaders like the high representative for foreign policy Kaja Kallas were ratcheting up anti-Chinese rhetoric, signals a deliberate pursuit of pragmatic economic ties over ideological confrontation.

Yet, for all these breaks with the mainstream, Sánchez’s foreign policy is riddled with a fundamental contradiction. On Ukraine, his government remains in alignment with the hardline Brussels consensus. This alignment is most clearly embodied by his proxy in Brussels, Iratxe García Pérez, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the European Parliament. In a stark display of this hawkishness, García Pérez used the platform of the State of the Union debate with the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to champion the demand to outright seize frozen Russian sovereign assets.

This reckless stance, which reflects the EU’s broader hawkish drift on Ukraine, is thankfully tempered only by a lack of power to implement it, rendering it largely a symbolic act of virtue signaling. The move is not just of dubious legality; it is a significant error in statecraft. It would destroy international trust in the Eurozone as a safe repository for assets. Most critically, it would vaporize a key bargaining chip that could be essential in securing a future negotiated settlement with Russia. It is a case of ideological posturing overriding strategic calculation.

This contradiction reveals the core of Sánchez’s doctrine: it is circumstantial, not convictional. His breaks with orthodoxy on Israel, defense spending and China are significant, but driven, to a large degree, by the necessity of domestic coalition management. His alignment on Ukraine is the path of least resistance within the EU mainstream, requiring no difficult choices that would upset his centrist instincts or his international standing.

Therefore, Sánchez is no Spanish De Gaulle articulating a grand sovereigntist strategic vision. He is a fascinating case study in the fragmentation of European foreign policy. He demonstrates that even within the heart of the Western mainstream which he represents, dissent on specific issues like Gaza and rearmament is not only possible but increasingly politically necessary.

However, his failure to apply the same pragmatic, national interest lens to Ukraine — opting instead for the bloc’s thoughtless escalation — proves that his policy is more a product of domestic political arithmetic than coherent strategic vision. He is a weathervane, not a compass — but even a weathervane can indicate a shift in the wind, and the wind in Spain is blowing away from unconditional Atlanticism.

US think tanks are the world's least transparent
Top image credit: Metamorworks via shutterstock.com

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

Washington Politics

According to a new survey, North American think tanks are tied as the least transparent of any region. The poll, conducted by On Think Tanks, surveyed 335 think tanks from over 100 countries. The accompanying report, released today, found that only 35% of North American think tanks (mostly from the U.S.) that responded to the survey disclose funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks disclose their funding sources.

And there are signs that think tank funding transparency is trending towards more opacity. Just last month, the Center for American Progress — a major center-left think tank with $46 million in annual revenue — announced that it would no longer disclose its donors. The think tank said it was taking this “temporary protective step” out of concern that the Trump administration could target them.

keep readingShow less
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less

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.