We Bet on Their Transformations, and They Bet on Our Stagnation...

The armed attack that targeted an Israeli military checkpoint in Hebron for some time, along with the repressive measures subsequently adopted by the Netanyahu government against residents of the West Bank, have shed light on a recurring tragedy: a security incident with limited consequences, followed by a series of harsh measures that civilians bear the burden of, ranging from closures and movement restrictions to reports of demolitions and displacements.

In Al-Karak, the assault targeting the church, and its repercussions on the Jordanian-Syrian border, have raised fears that the crime could evolve into an Arab rift, and that pain might be exploited to fuel religious and social divisions, rather than to reinforce the rule of law and protect pluralism.

Here, the two incidents converge, despite their different contexts, in repercussions that may extend beyond their immediate facts. Adversaries of legitimate Arab and Islamic causes may exploit such events to distort their image, undermine sympathy for them, and justify discriminatory positions and policies against peoples. Therefore, defending the justice of these causes requires rejecting injustice and incitement in all their forms, distinguishing between individual responsibility and the rights of peoples, and between committed crimes and religious affiliations.

In the political sphere, our peoples, from the ocean to the Gulf, await the results of the US midterm elections, betting on transformations within the Israeli entity, hoping they will lead to a review of policies that have inflicted serious losses on our countries.

There is nothing wrong with this, as elections, protests, and public opinion are genuine tools for influencing the balance of power within institutions, and may push governments to reconsider some of their choices.

However, changing officials does not necessarily mean changing strategic interests, nor does a change in rhetoric guarantee a change in policies.

Here lies the paradox: while our nation is preoccupied with following opinion polls in their countries, analyzing candidates' speeches, and betting on changes in governments, adversaries and enemies bet on the divisions and weaknesses afflicting our societies, and on the ignorance affecting some of their segments, as well as the ease of stirring emotions through slogans.

It is inaccurate to assume that every external force aims to dismantle us, but it is also naive to ignore that internal divisions weaken our negotiating position and make us more vulnerable to pressure and exploitation.

The problem, therefore, is not in following their elections, but in turning that follow-up into a strategy of waiting. The dilemma is not in enthusiasm for our causes, but in that enthusiasm turning into impulsiveness that disrupts strategic thinking. Just causes do not triumph through slogans alone, nor are they protected by reactive responses.

This requires policies built on long-term interests, not on immediate emotions. Only then do international transformations become opportunities we can leverage, rather than lifelines we merely await.

Some of our hopes may be closer to wishes than to political expectations based on clear indicators. Amid a major international game, driven by Zionist ambitions and intersecting interests of active powers, we find ourselves outside the decision-making circle, powerless even to confront pivotal decisions that control our trajectories and shape the contours of our future.