Time to retire ‘Arab-Israeli conflict’?

The current phase of fighting in the Middle East began almost a year ago, with the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and the subsequent pummeling of Gaza by Israel. But to many academics, foreign policy experts and international observers, what is taking place is also the latest episode in the decadeslong conflict commonly referred to as the “Arab-Israeli conflict.”

The experience of the past 11 months has led many experts on the region like myself to reassess that term. Is “Arab-Israeli conflict” an accurate reflection, given that the active participants are no longer just Arabs and Israelis? Should we retire that term for good now that the conflict has widened, drawing in the United States and Iran–and potentially Turkey and others in the coming years?

The Arab-Israeli conflict began after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. In what is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, but was then the Palestine mandate under British rule, sporadic disputes over land ownership led to violence between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, the conflict expanded into an interstate war between Israel and several Arab countries–Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Hence it was named the Arab-Israeli War by both the media and political leaders at the time.

This name remained accurate for several decades as the conflict remained geopolitically and geographically confined to the Arab countries and Israel. 

After the initial 1948 war, the unresolved conflict resulted in several other wars between Israel and Arab countries. Some oil-exporting Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also became indirectly involved by providing financial support for the front-line Arab states and declared oil embargoes against the West during the 1967 and 1973 wars.

Iraq was also directly affected by this prolonged conflict in the 1980s when Israel destroyed its nuclear facilities. Subsequently Iraq targeted Israel with missiles several times in 1991 during the first Gulf War.

The phrase “Arab-Israeli conflict” isn’t heard as much these days, but it’s still commonly in use, including by the United Nations, the United States government, media outlets and many scholars of the region. 

Usage of ‘Arab-Israeli conflict’ has declined in recent years

However, reference to “Arab-Israeli conflict” obscures the active role of several other participants, particularly in recent decades. 

The U.S. diplomatic support for Israel began with President Harry Truman’s decision to be the first to recognize the new state in May 1948. This was followed in the 1960s by an increase in U.S. military and financial support during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.

Substantial U.S. arms transfers to Israel also occurred in September 1970 when, at President Richard Nixon’s request, Israel mobilized its forces to save King Hussein of Jordan from a Palestinian uprising aided by Syrian forces.

In the following decades, however, the role of the U.S. has expanded into direct involvement in air defense operations against missile and drone attacks against Israel. The U.S. Army air defense units, for example, were used to defend Israel against Iraq’s scud missile attacks as early as the 1990-91 Gulf War.

This U.S. participation has been in evidence since the Oct. 7 attacks, too. In the months after the attacks, U.S. operations have been conducted against missile and drone attacks launched toward Israel by the Houthis in Yemen and by Iran.

By all accounts, the U.S. military support for Israel has played a crucial role in Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors. Therefore, an appropriate name for the broader conflict, I would argue, should reflect this active U.S. participation.

On the “Arab” side of the conflict, too, the adversaries of Israel are no longer limited to Arab nations. Iran is now an active participant; Tehran not only provides military support for groups hostile to Israel, including Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah, but it has had direct military exchanges with Israel during the current Gaza war.

Furthermore, Iran and Israel have been involved in covert operations and cyberwars against each other for the past 15 years, which have only intensified since the Israel-Hamas war.

And with no resolution to the current fighting in sight, the chances of widening the conflict further shouldn’t be dismissed. Two possible scenarios that can widen this conflict are a serious escalation between Israel and Iran, and the active participation of Turkey. 

The intense Israeli bombardment of Gaza and the resulting high casualties have escalated tensions between Israel and Turkey. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and politicians from various Turkish political parties have been very vocal in their criticism of Israel’s military operations. 

Public anger and anti-Israeli sentiments in Turkey have reached high levels, partly as a result of the extensive coverage of the carnage and human suffering in Gaza. There is even a small possibility that an unexpected event, such as an encounter between the Israeli navy and a Turkish ship approaching Gaza to defy Israel’s naval blockade, might lead to a military exchange between Turkey and Israel. While the likelihood of such an exchange remains small, a military escalation between Israel and Turkey could also be triggered by a major Israeli operation in Lebanon, according to some experts.

Almost a year into the latest phase of fighting in the Middle East, it is clear that the label “Arab-Israeli conflict” no longer reflects the facts on the ground. But “Israeli-Palestinian” or “Gaza-Israeli” fail to take into account the growing number of countries that have a stake – or an active role – in the fighting.

Indeed, in the course of the current Gaza conflict, people have been killed in Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Similarly, the list of belligerents includes Hamas and Israel, but also a plethora of Iran-backed militias across the Middle East and the Arab Peninsula.

So where does that leave us?

A more accurate title for the ongoing hostilities needs to better reflect all the major participants.

On one side, we have several nonstate actors and governments from across the Middle East and North Africa, or “MENA,” as the region is commonly called. On the other side we have an Israel heavily reliant on the U.S. for its military prowess and protection, and a United States that is fully committed to the security of Israel. I believe any name for the conflict should acknowledge the U.S. participation. 

So, in my opinion, it is better to call this the “MENA-ISRAME conflict” – in which “ISRAME” is constructed by combining the first three letters of “Israel” and “America.” 

I acknowledge that it is a bit of a mouthful and unlikely to catch on. But a name that reflects the larger set of participants in the Arab-Israeli conflict is nonetheless needed. It will increase awareness of the destruction, suffering and financial burden that it has inflicted on all the involved countries over its lifetime.

By doing so, it might increase the willingness of the world community, especially the active participants, to put more efforts toward finding a solution that can bring the MENA-ISRAME conflict to an end.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.