Gaza and the Calculus of Arab Complicity

Introduction: The Strategic Framing of a Humanitarian Catastrophe

The conflict in Gaza, at its most immediate level, is a devastating humanitarian crisis characterized by immense suffering, displacement, and loss of life. Yet, to analyze it solely through the lens of humanitarian law or bilateral Israeli-Palestinian history is to fundamentally misunderstand its nature and trajectory. The Gaza war is also part of a wider strategic competition, a crucial theater within a broader regional and global contest for influence, security, and legitimacy. This conflict sits at the intersection of shifting alliances, evolving deterrence postures, counterterrorism narratives, and volatile domestic politics. Consequently, when states perceive the conflict primarily as a strategic contest, geopolitical balance often supersedes humanitarian outcomes, significantly constraining international coalition resolve. This dynamic is particularly evident in the complex and often contradictory behavior of Arab states, whose responses are frequently characterized by a form of strategic complicity with Israel—a "Zionist complicity" in a geopolitical sense, driven not by ideological affinity, but by shared security interests and a pragmatic reorientation against common adversaries.

This essay argues that the Gaza war must be understood as a pivotal moment in a long-term strategic realignment. It will first map the global and regional competition (involving the US, Iran, and China) that frames the conflict. It will then analyze how this strategic lens compels states to prioritize realpolitik, thereby limiting humanitarian action. Finally, it will focus specifically on the "Zionist complicity" of key Arab states, arguing that their tacit support or strategic alignment with Israel—born of deterrence needs and economic ambition—has fundamentally shaped the war’s trajectory and their limited response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Part I: The Macro-Strategic Environment – Global and Regional Rivalries

To understand the conflict in Gaza, one must view it as a flashpoint in a multi-layered strategic competition. The actors involved are not merely Israel and Hamas, but a complex web of global powers and regional hegemons, each with distinct and often conflicting strategic objectives.

1 The Global Dimension: US Hegemony and the Rise of China

In the global arena, the United States remains the preeminent external power, albeit one with decreasing appetite for prolonged Middle Eastern entanglements. The Gaza war erupted against a backdrop of U.S. strategic "pivoting" towards the Indo-Pacific to counter a rising China. For the US, the conflict presents a dual challenge. Firstly, it is a threat to its long-standing alliances and its role as a security guarantor for Israel. A decisive Israeli victory, or at least the degradation of Hamas’s military capabilities, reinforces a core tenet of U.S. regional policy: the credibility of its security commitments. Secondly, the conflict complicates U.S. efforts to manage tensions with Iran and de-escalate regional crises, as it directly involves key Iranian proxies .

Conversely, for China and Russia, the war represents a strategic opportunity. By highlighting the humanitarian catastrophe and criticizing the West’s perceived double standards, they can position themselves as alternative powers advocating for a multi-polar world order. They seek to peel away U.S. allies in the Global South and undermine American moral authority. The conflict serves as a useful distraction and a wedge issue in international politics, allowing these powers to project themselves as champions of a more balanced international system.

2 The Regional Dimension: The Iran-led "Axis of Resistance" vs. the U.S.-allied Block

At the regional level, the competition is more direct and existential. The conflict is the latest—and most intense—battle in the long-running shadow war between Israel and the Iran-led "Axis of Resistance." This Axis, which includes Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, represents Iran's strategy of building a ring of proxy forces on Israel's borders to project power and deter direct attacks.

The October 7th attacks, from this perspective, can be seen as an attempt by Iran and its allies to break Israel’s strategic momentum. They aimed to disrupt the normalization agreements with Arab states (the Abraham Accords), reassert the centrality of the Palestinian cause, and demonstrate that Iran still possesses the capacity to inflict significant pain on its adversaries. In response, Israel's military campaign is not merely retaliation but a high-stakes effort to dismantle the "Axis of Resistance's" infrastructure. Destroying Hamas and degrading Hezbollah's capabilities is framed as essential for restoring Israeli deterrence, a concept central to the national security doctrines of both Israel and its regional allies . This regional contest has transformed the Gaza Strip from a blockaded enclave into a primary battlefield for determining the balance of power across the Levant.

Part II: Strategic Calculus and the Marginalization of Humanitarian Outcomes

When the conflict is defined by these grand strategic parameters, the humanitarian dimension inevitably becomes secondary. States operate within a framework of realpolitik where national interests, security, and alliances take precedence.

1. The Priority of Deterrence over Humanitarianism

For the U.S. and its allies, the primary objective in the immediate aftermath of October 7th was not humanitarian relief but the restoration of deterrence. A failure to support Israel in what was seen as a war of survival would signal weakness, potentially emboldening Iran and its proxies across the region to escalate their attacks. The strategic logic demanded a show of force to re-establish the "credibility" of the security umbrella the U.S. provides to its allies.

This security lens often leads to the public justification of military operations in terms of "self-defense" and "counterterrorism," framing the conflict as a necessity to prevent future attacks. In this paradigm, operational military necessities frequently supersede humanitarian concerns. While acknowledging civilian casualties, the strategic discourse often emphasizes the "right" to defend oneself, which can serve to rationalize disproportionate use of force and stall coalition efforts to secure a ceasefire.

2. The Counterterrorism Narrative as a Strategic Shield

The "counterterrorism" narrative is a powerful and strategically useful framework. By designating organizations like Hamas as terrorist groups, Western and many regional states legitimize the use of military force against them, while simultaneously delegitimizing political negotiations or the treatment of these groups as legitimate political actors. This framing sets the terms of the debate and restricts the potential for international mediation that does not come from a position of "Israel's right to defend itself."

In this context, calls for a ceasefire can be framed not as humanitarian imperatives, but as impediments to the legitimate fight against terrorism. This moral and strategic clarity, however selective, provides the discursive cover for states to continue providing diplomatic and military support to Israel, even as the humanitarian toll mounts.

3. Realpolitik Limiting Coalition Resolve

Geopolitical considerations often prevent a unified international coalition from forming to force a resolution. The UN Security Council, for instance, is paralyzed by the competing interests of its permanent members, with the U.S. using its veto power to shield Israel from resolutions deemed "unbalanced" or that fail to condemn Hamas. Russia and China block measures they view as tools of Western hegemony.

Furthermore, internal fractures within coalitions are common. While the U.S. and UK may offer robust military and diplomatic support, other European powers may be more hesitant, demanding greater restraint. Arab states, as we shall see, have their own domestic and regional pressures that limit their willingness to take a strong, unified stance. This dispersion of interests prevents the formation of a united front capable of compelling a cessation of hostilities.

Part III: The "Zionist Complicity" of Arab States – Pragmatism Over Solidarity

Perhaps the most telling indicator of the strategic nature of the conflict is the response of key Arab states. The phrase "Zionist complicity" is deliberately provocative, but in a geopolitical context, it accurately describes the strategic convergence between certain Arab regimes and Israel. This is not an ideological embrace of Zionism, but a realist calculation that their national interests are better served by aligning with Israel, even amidst a war against the Palestinians.

1. The Abraham Accords: A Strategic Realignment

The Abraham Accords of 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, were not a peace agreement in the traditional sense. They were a geopolitical realignment. They were driven by a shared perception of the primary threat: Iran. For the Gulf states, Israel is not an enemy; it is a powerful military and intelligence partner capable of assisting in countering Iranian expansionism. The Accords also promised significant economic dividends, technological cooperation, and a closer strategic partnership with the U.S.

This pre-existing realignment created a powerful inertia. While the war in Gaza has undoubtedly strained these relations, it has not fundamentally broken them. The core logic of the alliance—containing Iran—remains intact. For Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, sacrificing this strategic partnership to win a short-term popularity contest with their domestic populations is a price they are unwilling to pay.

2. Deterrence and the "Anti-Iran" Coalition

As discussed, the restoration of deterrence against Iran and its proxies is a shared strategic objective. For Arab states, Hezbollah and Hamas are not just enemies of Israel; they are Iranian proxies whose military capabilities and political influence represent a direct threat to Arab state sovereignty and stability. The war in Gaza is seen as an opportunity to significantly degrade one of these proxies, weakening Iran's regional position.

Therefore, their criticism of Israel is carefully calibrated. While they condemn the humanitarian suffering, they often avoid explicitly calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire that would leave Hamas intact. They balance their public statements to appease domestic public opinion while ensuring that their private or tacit support for Israel's strategic goals remains unchanged. Their primary concern is not the outcome in Gaza, but the strategic outcome of the broader regional contest.

3. Economic Integration and Domestic Stability

The economic vision for the region is deeply tied to stability. The Abraham Accords opened the door for immense economic cooperation. The prospect of integrating these economies—from technology to trade—is a powerful incentive for maintaining the relationship. The war is a severe disruption, but from a regime survival perspective, the long-term benefits of this integration are perceived to outweigh the short-term costs of the conflict.

Furthermore, these regimes are acutely aware of their domestic vulnerabilities. The "Arab Spring" demonstrated the power of popular unrest. However, the ability of the state to manage and suppress dissent is now more sophisticated. By providing substantial humanitarian aid—which is often channeled through international organizations rather than to Hamas—they can show solidarity with the Palestinian people without directly challenging Israel. This "aid and diplomacy" approach allows them to navigate the volatile domestic politics of their own populations, who are broadly supportive of the Palestinians, without sacrificing their strategic interests.

4. The "Normalization" Endgame

For these Arab states, the strategic goal is the full integration of Israel into the region as a partner in a new security architecture. The war in Gaza is a major obstacle to this vision, but it is seen as a temporary, albeit costly, obstacle. The endgame is to return to a "normalized" regional order where Israel is accepted and the Palestinian issue is managed, not solved. Their silence or limited action is a form of complicity in this project. By not using their significant leverage (such as suspending normalization, expelling ambassadors, or leveraging their oil resources) to force a different outcome, they are effectively signaling that the strategic project of regional integration is more important than the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Their inaction is a vote for the strategic status quo.

Part IV: The Consequences of Strategic Framing

Treating the Gaza conflict as a strategic contest has profound and dangerous consequences.

1. The Normalization of Unacceptable Suffering

When humanitarian outcomes are deprioritized, the suffering of the civilian population becomes an acceptable, if regrettable, "cost" of the strategic objective. This leads to a callousness in international discourse, where discussions of "proportionality" and "military necessity" become technical, academic exercises divorced from the human reality. It becomes easier for the international community to accept, or at least tolerate, massive civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

2. The Preclusion of a Sustainable Peace

The strategic framing discourages a political solution. The objective for both Israel and its allies is not a negotiated settlement with Hamas but the military defeat and political discrediting of Hamas. Similarly, for Iran and its allies, the goal is to ensure the survival of Hamas as a viable political and military force and to prevent Israeli victory. This zero-sum logic precludes the kind of political compromise necessary for a lasting peace. The focus on winning the strategic battle undermines the possibility of building a framework for co-existence.

3. The Erosion of International Law

By prioritizing strategic objectives over humanitarian protections, states actively weaken the international legal order. The selective application of humanitarian law, where it is deemed a constraint on strategic action for some but an absolute imperative for others, erodes its universality. This allows other states to pick and choose which international laws to respect, contributing to a broader erosion of the rules-based international order.

Conclusion: A Region Reconfigured, A Conflict Unresolved

The Gaza war is an inflection point, not just for Israel and Palestine, but for the entire Middle East. It is a manifestation of a deep and multi-layered strategic competition involving global powers, regional hegemons, and state and non-state actors. The conflict is framed by the need to restore deterrence, counter terrorism, and reconfigure the regional balance of power. In this grand strategic contest, humanitarian considerations are routinely marginalized, and coalition resolve is limited by the divergent and often competing interests of the states involved.

This analysis, centered on the "Zionist complicity" of Arab states, reveals the pragmatic, cold-hearted logic of realpolitik in the 21st century. For the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other key Arab nations, the normalization of relations with Israel represents a strategic necessity in the face of a shared Iranian threat. This strategic convergence has proven more resilient than the ties of ethnic solidarity with the Palestinians. Their response—marked by balanced rhetoric and humanitarian aid rather than coercive action—is a form of tacit support for Israel's strategic objectives, aiming to degrade the "Axis of Resistance" and secure a new regional order.

The consequence of this framing is the entrenchment of the conflict and the perpetuation of suffering. A peace built on strategic containment, without a just and sustainable political resolution for the Palestinians, is a fragile and flawed peace. The Gaza war has demonstrated that so long as the conflict is viewed primarily through the lens of grand strategy, the human dimension will be sacrificed, and the cycle of violence will continue to define the region. Ultimately, treating human beings as pawns on a geopolitical chessboard does not lead to victory, but only to a perpetuation of the very crises the strategy seeks to resolve.