Dr. Nor Aishah Hanifa is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Relations, Security and Law at the National Defense University of Malaysia (NDUM).

Clausewitz in his masterpiece On War (Vom Kriege1832) clearly asserts that “No one starts a war – or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so – without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it”. Clausewitz’s work helps to analyze on national interest; why the Arab states normalize diplomatic relationship with Israel. Realist thoughts help to explain why the Arab states at one-point disappointed Palestine and Palestinians when they say “end hostility” against Israel. Significantly Clausewitz’s work establishes the national interest causal explanation for this diplomatic behavior in the Middle East.

Understanding Clausewitz’s thoughts on state’s vital interest and peripheral interest could clarify the diplomatic architecture in the region. Palestine and Palestinians need understanding of dynamic national interest to face uncertain changes in the Middle East. Palestine also could formulate better strategy for the future. Clausewitz’s thoughts also teach Palestine to be independent in its struggle. This is a sole fight of Palestine, not the Arab nations. The Cold War intensity in the Arab-Israel conflict has ended long time ago. Pan-Arabism lauded by Gamal Abdel Naseer to protect Palestinians’ rights no longer alive. Normalization of diplomacy between Israel and Arab nations (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) is setting a new chapter in the Israel-Palestine conflict.  

Clausewitz discusses national interest in two noteworthy titles: vital interest and peripheral interest. The vital interest relates to vital issues (dangerous); serious harms likely result to the state unless strong measures, including the use of conventional military forces are employed to counter an adverse action by another state or deter it from undertaking a serious provocation. Meanwhile, peripheral interest relates to peripheral issues (bothersome); the well-being of the state is not adversely affected by events or trends abroad, but the interest of private citizens and companies operating in foreign countries are endangered. 

Arab nations’ fear and security dilemma are major factors in the normalization of diplomacy with Israel. Arab nations in the region face severe threat factor from rising Iran. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran rises as a powerful nation in the region. In the global power index (gpi), Iran is in the 14th rank compared to Israel in the 18th rank. Iran’s Shiite ideology involve in the hegemonic competition with the Sunni Islam Saudi Arabia. Iran also active in exporting Shiite ideology in the region and supporting internal forces in the region to create the proxy war system, like in Yemen. The Arab nations perceive Iran as a threat to Sunni Islam, and tradition of monarchs in the region, the ruling regimes. Iran sees them as antagonists in its essence of revolution. Relationship between Iran and Arab nations deteriorated in a similar way with Israel and Iran. 

Israel’s national security has been under threat once Iran become a Republic of Islam. Iranian leaders since Ayatollah Khomeini threaten Israel by offensive verdicts and actions. Israel also uses offensive retaliations against Iran and continuously lobby the US Administration to impose harsh actions against Iran through sanctions. In the 21st century, Israel perceives Iran’s aggressive policies in the region, such as support to Hezbollah and Hamas as a threat to Israel’s survival, which is Israel’s vital interest. In Israel’s national interest calculations, Israel faces Hezbollah in the northern region, Hamas in the southern region, and Iran as a major nemesis in the region. In this volatile Middle East, Machiavellianism wins to influence formulation of foreign policy. “Enemy of my enemy is my friend” proven to be a magical political word. Forces in the region pushed Israel and the Arab nations to sign the famous Abraham Accords in 2020. The Abraham Accords promised security and prosperity to the nations concerned, referring to Clausewitz’s vital interest.  

For the Arab nations, like the United Arab Emirates, protecting the vital interest is imminent. Being a small nation in the Persian Gulf, facing the sizeable Iran is a great challenge to its national interest. The UAE-Iran relationship tarnished when Iran annexed three islands claim by the UAE (Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb) in the Straits of Hormuz in 1970s. The vital interest to protect its territory become a rational calculation of the UAE to sign the Abraham Accords. Same goes to Bahrain, a small nation located at the Persian Gulf. For all Arab nations, enjoying continuous wealth and prosperity is equally important when the future of oil and energy is uncertain in the region. Diversifying commercial sectors with the help of Israel seen as a lucrative way of doing business. The accords ensure increased trade, tourism, and transfer of technology. In critical time, the accords enable the Arab nations to purchase arms from Israel. The vital interest guarantees survival of nations to handle all security issues, it can be traditional security issues and non-traditional security issues.   

Clausewitz’s vital interest and peripheral interest conceptions are guiding the region to make strategic decisions. In dealing with the vital interest, certain aspects of the national interest can be classified as the peripheral interest. One of the national interests that graded as the peripheral interest is the Palestine issue. In the past the Palestine issue was one of the vital interests. The Abraham Accords indirectly notifies Palestine and the world that the vital interest is changing in the region. Palestine and Palestinians need a change to face unexpected in the region. Palestine should have a concrete strategy about its future. There is no permanent friend or foe in politics. Palestine should be dynamic in choosing what instrument of policy/politics to survive, according to era and power politics.