Dr. Salem AlKetbi is a UAE political analyst
Did revolutionary Arab regimes operating far from the frontlines truly support the Palestinian Arab cause, or did they simply use it as a political bargaining chip at the expense of frontline countries and the Palestinian Arabs themselves?
A rare audio recording recently circulating across Arab media outlets between Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi exposes shocking truths long hidden behind flowery rhetoric and fiery speeches.
This recording, which has made the rounds on Arab media platforms over the past few days, captures Abdel Nasser explicitly admitting that Egypt had no intention of entering a war for someone else’s cause. “Whoever wanted to fight the Jews should do so themselves.”
A close look at this historic recording reveals how Arab regimes away from the conflict zone weaponized the Palestinian Arab cause to gain domestic and regional advantages. The Palestinian Arabs ultimately became the biggest losers in this lopsided equation.
Perhaps it is time to critically reassess these policies and reconsider Israel’s potential role as a regional partner.
The widely shared recording highlights the glaring contradiction between the public rhetoric of revolutionary Arab regimes and their actual positions.
Abdel Nasser, long revered as the champion of Arab nationalism and anti-colonial resistance, responds with surprising bluntness to Qaddafi’s demands for a unified military force to "liberate Palestine", saying: “If someone wants to fight, let them fight” and “Those who want combat and liberation, go right ahead.”
He further challenges those questioning Egypt’s commitment: “Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Yasser Arafat, and George Habash can meet all they want, and we’ll skip the meeting. Go fight, and I’ll even give you 50 million pounds in aid – just leave us alone. Let us focus on our western front and Sinai.”
We cannot ignore the historical reality that the revolutionary rhetoric from certain Arab regimes was nothing more than a smokescreen hiding completely different intentions. These regimes pushed for conflict and inflamed the Palestinian Arab issue while avoiding any personal consequences.
This becomes crystal clear when Abdel Nasser, recognizing that other regimes were trying to entangle Egypt in conflict, flatly states that Egypt would not go to war for someone else’s cause.
Without question, the political grandstanding of revolutionary regimes primarily served to shore up their domestic legitimacy and secure regional influence, rather than actually "liberating Palestine" as they claimed. Abdel Nasser reveals that self-styled revolutionary Arab countries were essentially giving Egypt an ultimatum: either fight Israel or face conflict with them. Such tactics clearly show how the Palestinian Arab cause was exploited as a political lever.
Evidently, the inflammatory rhetoric adopted by certain Arab regimes actively undermined numerous peace initiatives that could have fairly resolved the conflict and opened doors to regional cooperation. These so-called revolutionary regimes brought ruin and destruction first to their own countries and then to other Arab societies, squandering golden opportunities for peace with Israel and the potential for development and progress with this new and successful regional player.
Countries like Egypt and Jordan that chose peace with Israel have reaped significant strategic and economic benefits while avoiding the devastating human and material costs of conflict. Meanwhile, nations that maintained hostile rhetoric, backing terrorism and massacres, have paid heavy prices both domestically and internationally without making any meaningful contribution toward resolving the Palestinian Arab issue.
One striking reality often overlooked in regional discussions is how the impractical decisions made by certain revolutionary Arab leaders – who claimed to be progressive while becoming burdens on their own populations – along with Palestinian Arab leadership, proved disastrous for Arab societies and set back rather than advanced the Palestinian Arab cause.
Revolutionary slogans simply cannot replace rational policies that acknowledge real-world conditions and power dynamics.
Palestinian Arabs themselves openly assert that this is their cause and they are its rightful decision-makers. This is certainly their legitimate right, but why should other Arab countries bear the consequences of decisions that may be flawed or unrealistic?
Israel exists as an established fact, and it seeks peace and coexistence that ensures security for its citizens. Despite political differences, there are tremendous opportunities for collaboration in economics, technology, security, and environmental protection that could benefit everyone in the region.
Israel has emerged as a regional player that cannot simply be wished away; the potential benefits of cooperation far outweigh the proven costs of confrontation, which has repeatedly led to failure and pointless losses.
Peace and stability are absolutely essential for development and prosperity in the region – neither can be achieved while conflict and tension persist.
The bottom line is that balancing national interests with regional concerns requires pragmatism that puts people first. The countries that have achieved economic growth and development in this region share one thing in common: they chose peace and cooperation.
